On the surface structure of infinitive-complement sentences

Journal o f Psycholinguistic Research, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1977

On the Surface S t r u c t u r e o f I n f i n i t i v e - C o m p l e m e n t S e n t e n c e s I

Susan Kemper, 2 Jack Catlin, 2 and John S. Bowers a

Received April 21, 1975

Linguists' inability to reach consensus about the surface structure o f infinitive-complement sentences with verbs like believe is a consequence o f unresolved foundational disputes about the nature o f generative grammar. Naive native speakers' linguistic intuitions about sentences o f this type, as assessed by elicitation o f judgments about surface structure, also fail to provide a solution to this problem. Insofar as we have no way o f deciding on the surface structure o f believe-type infinitive-complement sentences, click-displacement results with these materials cannot be used to support either a surface-structure account or a deep-structure account o f the parsing of sentences in the process o f comprehension.

INTRODUCTION

In sentences like (la), a click placed in the main verb wanted tends to be perceived as occurring between the main verb and the subsequent noun phrase.

1. a. The teacher wanted the guilty boy to inform on his classmates. b. The teacher tempted the guilty boy to inform on his classmates.

This research was supported in part by Grant MH 08520-12 from the National Institute of Mental Health.

1The order of appearance of the names of the first and second authors was determined by a flip of a coin.

2Department of Psychology, CorneU University, Ithaca, New York. 3Depaxtment of Modem Languages and Linguistics, ComeU University, Ithaca, New York.

~) 1977 Plenum Publishing Corporation, 227 West 17th Street, New York, N.Y. 10011. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording, or otherwise, without written permission of the publisher.

Kemper, Catlin, and Bowers

In sentences like (lb), on the other hand, no analogous click-displacement effect is found (Bever et al., 1969).

The interpretation of these results is a matter of some controversy. Bever et al. assume that the two types of infinitive-complement sentences have the same surface structure-in particular, that both have the surface-structure clause boundary after the noun phrase subsequent to the main verb. Given this assumption, they argue that the difference in click-displacement results with the two types of sentences is not attributable to surface structure. Furthermore, the underlying representations of the two types of sentences differ in a way which parallels the click-displacement results; there is a deep-structure clause boundary between wanted and the guilty boy in (la), but not between tempted and the guilty boy in (lb). Bever et al. conclude that the click-displacement results can only be attributed to deep structure, and therefore that "underlying structures of sentences are the primary units of immediate speech processing" (p. 225).

Chapin et al. (1972) and Toppino (1974) take a different tack; they assume that the two types of sentences do not have the same surface structure. Specifically, these authors state their belief that the superficial clause boundary falls between the main verb and the subsequent noun phrase in (la), but after the guilty boy in (lb). This difference in surface structure, according to Chapin et al. and Toppino, is fully adequate to account for the obtained differences in click-displacement results between the two types of sentences. On this view, there is no necessity to appeal to deep structure as a determinant of the immediate processing of sentences in comprehension.

This debate about the proper interpretation of click-displacement effects with infinitive-complement sentences can be taken as a case study of the problems involved in trying to interrelate formal grammar and psycholinguistics. The pivotal issue on which the dispute hinges is that of the surface structure of infmitive-complement sentences-in particular, of sentences like (la). In the present article, we survey the current status of linguistic argumentation on this point, and also explore what native speakers' intuitions may tell us, to see if this issue of surface structure can be resolved. If not, infinitive-complement sentences will fail to provide the experimentum crucis sought by Bever et al. for deep-structure effects in sentence processing, although for a subtler reason than that appealed to by Chapin eta/. and Toppino. 4

4Even for constructions whose grammatical analysis is not in dispute, there is reason to be skeptical about the possibility of a true experimentum crucis in psyeholinguistics. A priori, we have no strong reason to suppose that results obtained with any one particular construction will generalize broadly; insofar as any such particular construe- tion is but a sample from the language as a whole, the relevance of Clark's (1973) remarks about the language-as-fLxed-effect fallacy is obvious.

infinitive-Complement Sentences

LINGUISTIC THEORY

In this section, we briefly outline the current status of grammatical analysis of infinitive-complement sentences. We do not pretend to give a full and exhaustive presentation of the intricacies involved in this issue. However, our discussion will be sufficient to allow us to draw some conclusions about whether or not linguists are likely to come to an unequivocal statement about the surface structure of infinitive-complement sentences. In our opinion, the grammatical issues involved are fundamental enough that they merit more than just the simple comment that "At present, there are no conclusive linguistic arguments which will resolve this issue" (Fodor et aL, 1974, p. 338).

Chomsky (1965) and Rosenbaum (1967) contributed the major relevant observations about infinitive-complement sentences, subsequently accepted as data for further grammatical analysis. Chomsky noted that infinitive-complement constructions with believe-type verbs have different properties from those with force-type verbs. Consider sentences (2a) and (3a); they are superficially quite similar in structure. Yet a major difference becomes apparent if one compares the versions of these sentences with the complement material in active vs. passive form.

2. a. I believe a doctor to have examined John. b. I believe John to have been examined by a doctor.

3. a. I forced a doctor to examine John. b. I forced John to be examined by a doctor.

Specifically, (2a) and (2b) have the same truth-conditions, whereas (3a) and (3b) do not have the same truth-conditions. Therefore, we must provide different accounts of the underlying grammatical relations in infinitive-complement constructions for believe-type verbs vs. force-type verbs.

Rosenbaum (1967), on the other hand, contributed the suggestion that there are further parallels of surface syntax between infinitive-complement constructions with believe-type verbs and force-type verbs. In both cases, the matrix-sentence passive involving the subject of the complement sentence is acceptable, as in (4a) and (4b). s Also in both cases, the pseudo-cleft involving the complement is not acceptable, as in (5a) and (5b).

4. a. A doctor is believed by me to have examined John. b. A doctor was forced by me to examine John.

SLikewise for reflexives: (i) I believe myself to have examined John. (ii) I forced myself to examine John.


5. a. *What I believe is a doctor to have examined John. b. *What I forced was a doctor to examine John.

These parallels are in contrast to what happens with that-clause complements with believe-type verbs; in this case, the passive is not acceptable, but the pseudo-cleft is, as in sentences (6a), (6b), and (6c).

6. a. I believe (that) a doctor has examined John. b. *A doctor is believed by me has examined John. c. What I believe is that a doctor fias examined John.

There is consensus about the general outlines of the analysis of infinitive complements for force-type verbs. Operating on a deep structure like (7), a rule of Equi-NP Deletion erases the subject of the complement sentence when

7. S

A NP VP

AUX V NP S

NP VP

V NP

I I past force adoctor adoctor examine John

certain coreferentiality conditions have been met. Other operations determine the surface form of the complement verb. The result of all these operations is a sentence with surface-structure clause boundaries as shown in (8).

8. I forced a doctor [to examine John] S.

The Pseudo-cleft transformation cannot apply at any point to generate (5b), because the complement-sentence material is at no point dominated by an NP node. On the other hand, Passivization is applicable to the output of Equi-NP Deletion, yielding (4b).

In contrast, the derivation of infinitive-complement sentences with believe-type verbs is under debate. Postal (1974) takes up the viewpoint that

Infinitive-Complement Sentences

9. S

NP VP

V NP

I S

NP VP

I believe

AUX V NP

1 I I a doctor have-en examine John.

the subject of the complement sentence is raised into the position of direct object of the matrix verb. In its relevant aspects, the deep structure for sentences of this type is as shown in (9). For Postal, a rule of Raising applies to this deep structure to move the complement-sentence subject into matrix direct-object position. Subsequent operations, triggered by Raising, yield the infinitive form of the complement verb. The resulting clause boundaries of the surface-structure sentence are as shown in (10).

10. I believe a doctor [to have examined John] S.

After Raising, the Pseudo-cleft transformation cannot apply to generate (5a) because the infinitive-complement material does not form a unitary constituent. Passivization to yield (4a), on the other hand, is a strictly clause-internal transformation for Postal; thus it requires the application of Raising to (9), and operates on its output.

This treatment of Passivization exemplifies a critical feature of Postal's analysis: the applicability of transformations is to be defined in terms of grammatical relations between constituents, rather than just in terms of the order of constituents in terminal strings. It is by virtue of this central premise that Passivization cannot simply permute the noun phrases in any string of the form NP1-V-NP2-X, but rather requires that NP2 be grammatically specified as the direct object of V. Passivization does not apply in the derivation of the that-clause sentence (6a) because in this case the subject of the complement


sentence has not been raised into the position of direct object of the matrix verb; thus (6b) cannot be generated.

On the other hand, Chomsky (1973) approaches these matters in a quite different way. For Chomsky, the applicability of transformations is to be defined strictly in terms of the order of constituents in terminal strings. Within his framework, there is therefore no necessity to raise the subject of the complement sentence into the position of direct object of the matrix verb in order to account for the passive form (4a). Except that for Chomsky the infinitival form of the complement verb is specified in deep structure, the underlying form with which the derivation begins is again (9). Given Chomsky's notion of transformation, Passivization can apply directly to this deep structure to generate (4a). Thus, in his analysis, the surface-structure clause boundaries of (2a) are as shown in (11).

11. I believe [a doctor to have examined John] S.

Chomsky accounts for the unacceptability of the passive (6b) for the that,zlause sentence (6a) as follows: The difference between the tensed that-clause vs. the untensed infinitival version of the complement sentence is specified in deep structure, and there is to be a universal condition on transformations that they cannot extract material from tensed clauses. Thus Passivization is not applicable to the underlying form of (6a).

Chomsky does not address himself to as wide a range of data for infinitive-complement sentences as does Postal. In particular, Chomsky does not explicitly give an account of the unacceptability of the pseudo-cleft form (5a). This could be taken as a reason for preferring Postars analysis, and therefore for accepting the surface structure (10) rather than the surface structure (11). However, there are further considerations which make any such simple conclusion doubtful.

First, the issue at dispute between Postal and Chomsky is much deeper than just the question of the surface structure of infinitive-complement sentences. What is fundamentally at stake is the question of how the notion "transformational rule" is to be defined, within the framework of generative grammar. Are transformations to be defined as applying to phrase markers, or to terminal strings? Postal advocates the first alternative, and seeks to reduce the power of the transformational component by a narrow specification of the particular grammatical relations that various classes of transformations can make reference to. Chomsky advocates the second alternative, and seeks.to reduce the power of the transformational component by the discovery of universal conditions on transformations, restricting their range of applicability. As long as this foundational issue of generative grammar remains in dispute,


the grammarians will have no firm conclusions about the surface structure of infinitive-complement sentences available for export to psycholinguistics.

Second, on the specific topic of infinitive-complement sentences, it is appropriate for psycholinguists to ask whether the pattern of acceptability of various infinitive-complement constructions is really the same as that assumed by the grammarians. In particular, is the passive form (4a) fully acceptable and the pseudo-cleft (5a) completely unacceptable? To the extent that naive native speakers' judgments do not correspond to what the linguists take as given, the relevance of formal/grammatical analysis to empirical issues in psycholinguistics is questionable.

In sum, linguistic theory provides no solution to the problem of the surface structure of believe-type inf'mitive-complement sentences, and the empirical status of the linguistic work is not obvious. An alternative approach to this issue is to directly elicit judgments from naive native speakers, to see if they show any natural consensus about the location of the surface-structure clause boundary. Within this way of proceeding, it is also relevant to see what relations exist between judgments of the clause-boundary location for the active form (2a) and judgments of the acceptability of the passive (4a) and the pseudo-cleft (5a). We present below two experiments which explore this approach.

EXPERIMENT I

In this experiment, we queried subjects about the surface structure of infinitive-complement sentences both for believe-type verbs (this being the issue under dispute) and for force-type verbs (in order to validate the method). We also elicited judgments about the relative acceptability of active vs. passive constructions for both types of verbs.

Method

Subjects

Subjects were 60 undergraduate volunteers from the introductory psychology course at Comell. All were native speakers of English; none had taken any course work in linguistics or formal logic. There were 28 females and 32 males; the mean age was 18.6 years.

Materials

The sentences used were the six believe-type infinitive-complement sentences and six force-type sentences from Experiment 2 of Bever et al. For


each such active sentence, the corresponding passive was formed by analogy to

(2a) and (4a). The sentences are listed in Append ix I.

Procedure

Each subject made a j udgmen t about the loca t ion o f the surface-struc-

ture clause bounda ry for a single active sentence, and then rated the relative

acceptabi l i ty o f active vs. passive forms of that sentence. Judgments were

ob ta ined f rom six subjects for each believe.type sentence (the cons t ruc t ion o f

focal concern) , and f rom four subjects for each force-type sentence (where

general consensus was expec ted) . Subjects ' j udgments were elici ted by means

o f a three-page quest ionnaire , designed as described be low.

Page 1 provided a br ie f in t roduc t ion to the idea o f breaking sentences

in to parts, as follows:

We are interested in the structure of sentences. Most of the people we have already asked indicate that a sentence has two parts, a subject and a predicate. They would divide a sentence like (1) between "house" and "bloomed."

1. The flowers near the house bloomed early in May. The sentence is about "the flowers near the house" and "bloomed early in May" tells us something about those flowers.

Now we are interested in finding out whether people agree on other parts of a sentence.

Page 2 was designed to elicit subjects ' j udgments about the surface-struc-

ture clause boundary , as fol lows:

Below are two copies of a sentence; each has the predicate of the sentence already underlined. Predicates themselves can also be broken into parts, and some ways of doing this may be more natural than others. Of the two ways we have indicated below, which do you feel is more natural, and by how much? Indicate your judgment using the rating scale below.

A. The teacher wanted [ the guilty boy to inform on his classmates.

B. The teacher wanted the guilty boy [ to inform on his classmates.

Your judgment:

1. I feel that the way of breaking the predicate shown in A is much more natural than that shown in B.

2. I feel that the way of breaking the predicate shown in A is somewhat more natural than that shown in B.

3. I feel that the two ways of breaking the predicate shown above are equally natural.

4. I feel that the way of breaking the predicate shown in B is somewhat more natural than that shown in A.

5. I feel that the way of breaking the predicate shown in B is much more natural than that shown in A.


Of the group of subjects judging any given sentence, half saw the form with the within-predicate break immediately after the matrix verb as version A, and the o the r ha l f saw the two forms o f the sentence in the o ther order.

Page 3 elici ted subjects ' j udgments abou t relative acceptabi l i ty o f active

vs. passive forms o f the sentence in ques t ion , as follows:

One more question: Below are listed both the sentence we just i asked you about and also a different version of that same sentence. Here we simply want your judgment about which version is more natural and by how much. Indicate your judgment using the rating scale below.

A. The teacher wanted thet guilty boy to inform on his classmates. B. The guilty boy was wanted by the teacher to inform on his

classmates. Your judgment: _ _

1. I feel that sentence A is by far more natural than sentence B. 2. I feel that sentence A is a good deal more natural than sentence B. 3. I feel that sentence A is somewhat more natural than sentence B. 4. I feel that the two sentences are equally natural. 5. I feel that sentence B is somewhat more natural than sentence A. 6. I feel that sentence B is a good deal more natural thanl sentence A. 7. I feel that sentence B is by far more natural than sentence A.

Results and Discussion

Subjects ' j udgments about the loca t ion o f the surface-structure clause

bounda ry for force-type verbs are presented in Fig. 1. The mean rating given

for the c lause-boundary loca t ion for these verbs was 4.00, and 71% o f the

(n I - Z U.i 2E r I 0 o

L 0 n- 5

m Z

Z

I 2 BREAK BEFORE

NP

/ / /

3 4 5 NO BREAK

PREFERENCE AFTER NP

BREAK POSITION

Fig. 1. Judgments of location of surface- structure clause boundary, for the force-type sentences of Experiment 1.

10 Kemper, Catlin, and Bowers

r l.- z b.l :E 1.0 I0 o - j

t l . 0

, r 5

IE

7 I

/

/

/

I

/

1

I

I BREAK

BEFORE NP

4 5 NO BREAK

PREFERENCE AFTER NP

BREAK POSITION

Fig. 2. Judgments of location of surface- structure clause boundary, for the believe- type sentences of Experiment 1.

subjects judged the boundary to come after the noun phrase. Thus subjects showed a strong consensus in judging that the clause boundary for force-type verbs falls after the noun phrase, rather than before it [• (1) = 9.38, p <0 .01 ] . These results confirm the theoretical analysis of infinitive-complement sentences with force-type verbs, as shown in (8) above. This confirma- tion, in turn, serves as evidence for the relevance of naive native speakers' linguistic intuitions to the issue in dispute.

As Fig. 2 shows, subjects' judgments about the location of the surface- structure clause boundary for believe-type verbs show a different pattern; the difference in obtained pattern of results for the two classes of verbs is quite reliable [U = 243, z = 3.02, p < 0.002]. For believe-type verbs, the mean rating given for the clause-boundary location was 2.97; 53% judged the boundary to come before the noun phrase, while 44% judged the boundary to come after the noun phrase. Thus subjects showed no consensus about whether the clause boundary for believe-type verbs falls before or after the noun phrase [X 2 (1) = 0.71, p > 0.30]. These results give us no basis for deciding between alternative theoretical analyses of infinitive-complement sentences for believe-type verbs; subjects did not consistently agree with either (10) or (11).

Further, the distribution of judgments for believe-type verbs is bimodal, in that subjects avoided giving the no-preference rating, 3, relative to its immediate neighbors, 2 and 4. The frequency of 3 judgments is depressed relative to the frequencies of 2 and 4 judgments [• (2 )= 30.99, p < 0.001], while there is no reliable difference in frequency of 2 vs. 4 judgments [• (1)

In f'mitive-Co mplem ent Sentences 11

= 1.20, p > 0.20] .Thus it is not a lack of preference, but rather disagreement, that underlies the tack of consensus.

The judgments of relative acceptability of active vs. passive forms of infinitive-complement sentences show a consistent preference for the active form, both for force-type verbs [mean rating = 2.67; T(21) = 35, p < 0 . 0 1 ] and for believe-type verbs [mean rating --- 1.67; T(35) = 14, p < 0 . 0 0 1 ] . While the same overall trend appears in the relative-acceptability jud~nents for both classes of verbs, the effect is reliably stronger for the believe-type verbs [U = 274, z = 2.66, p <0 .01] . These results suggest that the passive is quite low in acceptability, especially for believe-type verbs, thus calling into question the data the linguists take as given. However, the requirement of a contrastive judgment of acceptability may have magnified the apparent size of this effect.

The relationship between clause-boundary judgments and acceptability judgments was assessed by looking to see if there was any reliable tendency for the passive form to be judged more acceptable by those subjects who judged the surface clause boundary to come after the noun phrase. Neither for force-type nor for believe-type verbs was any such correlation found. For force-type verbs, the correlation between clause-boundary judgments and acceptability judgments is r s = -0.07 [.iV = 24, p > 0.30] ; for believe-type verbs, the correlation is r S = -0.13 IN = 36, p >0 .30] . However, the fact that the acceptability judgments were contrastive obscures the interpretation of these negative results.

EXPERIMENT 2

While the results of Experiment 1 suggest that there is no consensus about the surface structure of believe-type infinitive-complement sentences, an alternative interpretation is possible. The believe-type verbs used in Experiment 1 can take not only infinitive complements but also for-to complements, as shown in (12a) and (12b).

12. a. The teacher wanted the guilty boy to inform on his classmates. b. The teacher wanted for the guilty boy to inform on his

classmates.

For the case of for-to complements, there is good evidence that the surface-structure clause boundary occurs immediately after the matrix verb (Postal, 1974). If some subjects were treating the infinitive-complement form as a for-to complement, this could have obscured what might otherwise be a


consensus that the surface-structure clause boundary occurs after the noun phrase following the matrix verb.

In Experiment 2, we again elicited subjects' judgments about the surface clause boundary for believe-type infinitive-complement sentences, but for verbs for which the for-to complement form does not occur. In addition, we collected noncontrastive judgments of the acceptability of the active, passive, and pseudo-cleft forms of the constructions in question.

Method

Subjects

Subjects were 144 undergraduate volunteers from the introductory psychology course at Cornell. All were native speakers of English; none had taken any course work in linguistics or formal logic. There were 88 females and 56 males; the mean age was 18.3 years.

Materials

Twelve believe-type verbs were chosen which do not take for-to complements. All appear on list 21a, verbs taking infinitive complements, of Alexander and Kunz (1964). An active sentence was constructed with each verb, using the past-tense affirmative form of the verb, and an infinitive complement of the form NP[+animate]+to+be+(predicate adjective or predicate nominal). For each active, the corresponding passive and pseudo-cleft forms were also constructed. The sentences are listed in Appendix II.

Procedure

Ninety-six subjects (eight for each sentence) made judgments about the surface clause boundary for the active versions of the sentences, in the same way as subjects made these judgments in Experiment 1-i.e., using pages 1 and 2 of the previously described questionnaire. Order of presentation of the two forms of the sentence was again counterbalanced across subjects.

Each subject also made a judgment of the acceptability of the passive or pseudo-cleft version of the sentence assigned to him. To elicit these judgments, subjects were given a separate questionnaire page, asking them to consider the passive or pseudo-cleft sentence presented on that page. The following material occurred below the sentence in order to elicit the judgment in question:

We axe interested in your judgment of how natural this sentence is. Make your judgment using the rating scale below.

Your judgment:

Infinitive-Complement Sentences 13

1. I feel the sentence is quite natural. 2. I feel the sentence is fairly natural. 3. I feel the sentence is somewhat unnatural. 4. I feel the sentence is very unnatural.

For each sentence, half the subjects judged the acceptability of the passive and half that of the pseudo-cleft. Order of judgments (clause boundary of active vs. acceptability of passive/pseudo-cleft) was counterbalanced across subjects, and across the two minor variants of the active-judgment task.

In addition, 48 other subjects (four for each sentence)judged the acceptability of the active version of the sentences, using the same rating scale as the other subjects used for the passive and pseudo-cleft versions. These latter 48 subjects did not make clause-boundary judgments.

Results and Discussion

Subjects' judgments about the location of the surface-structure clause boundary for the believe-type verbs used in Experiment 2 are presented in Fig. 3. For these materials, the mean rating given for the clause-boundary location was 2.84; 48% judged the boundary to come before the noun phrase, while 44% judged the boundary to come after the noun phrase. And so we again found no consensus about whether the clause boundary for believe-type verbs falls before or after the noun phrase [X 2 (1) = 0.18, p > 0 . 5 0 ] . Also, the pattern of boundary-location judgments for Experiment 2 does not differ reliably from that found for the believe-type verbs in Experiment 1 [U -- 1973, z = 1.31, p >0 .15] . Thus these data on naive native speakers' linguistic

50

Z

~ 2 0

0 I A

~ L~ W m I 0 L~ X

L,,"I Z 1tl

I / I

I 2 BREAK

BEFORE NP

/ : I

I , I

I '

r

1 /

J

3 4 5 NO BREAK

PREFERENCE AFTER NP

BREAK POSITION

Fig. 3. Judgments of location of surface- structure clause boundary, Experiment 2.


intuitions give us no grounds for preferring either of the competing theoretical analyses of infinitive-complement sentences for believe-type verbs-neither (10) nor (11) is consistently supported.

The distribution of judgments for the believe-type verbs in Experiment 2 is again bimodal. The frequency of 3 judgments is depressed relative to the frequencies of 2 and 4 judgments [• (2) = 22.25, p < 0.001], while there is no reliable difference in frequency of 2 vs. 4 judgments [X 2 (1) = 0.42, p > 0.50]. Again, not lack of preference, but disagreement.

For the materials used in Experiment 2, there are consistent differences across verbs (or across sentences, as each verb was used in a single sentence) in judgments of clause-boundary location [Kruskal-WaUis one-way analysis of variance; H' (11) = 20.59, p < 0 . 0 5 ] . Table I presents the mean clause- boundary judgment for each verb/sentence. This variation across items sugges.ts that, as far as naive native speakers are concerned, infinitive-complement constructions with believe-type verbs do not even form a homogeneous class, thus further complicating the issue.

For the noncontrastive judgments of acceptability obtained in this experiment, the mean acceptability ratings obtained were 2.72 for the active form, 2.89 for the passive, and 3.39 for the pseudo-cleft. Judgments for the passive and pseudo-cleft forms did not differ reliably for subjects who made the acceptability judgment before the clause-boundary judgment vs. subjects who made the clause-boundary judgment first.

The active form is not reliably rated more acceptable than the passive [U = 1326.5, z = 1.57, p >0 .10] , in contrast to the results of Experiment 1. The pseudo-cleft is less acceptable than the passive [U = 717.5, z = 3.54, p < 0.005]. The mean acceptability rating for the active form, 2.72 on a 1-4 scale, indicates that even the active infinitive-complement sentences are far from fully acceptable. Actives and passives are more acceptable than pseudo- clefts; thus ordinal acceptability of the three forms is the same as the pattern that linguists take as given (active and passive grammatical, pseudo-cleft ungrammatical). However, the marginal status even of actives and passives calls

Table I. Mean Judgment of Clause-Boundary Location for Each Verb in Exper- iment 2

Verb Mean judgment

believe 1.875 report 2.000 discover 2.250 think 2.500 know 2.500 understand 2.750

Verb Mean judgment

show 2.750 suppose 2.750 prove 3.125 guess 3.500 declare 3.875 judge 4.250


into question the relevance of the proposed formal/grammatical analyses for any empirical psycholinguistic account of infinitive-complement sentences with believe-type verbs.

The relationship between clause-boundary judgments and acceptability judgments in Experiment 2 was assessed by looking to see if there was any reliable tendency either (1) for the passive form to be judged more acceptable by those subjects who judged the surface clause boundary to come after the noun phrase or (2) for the pseudo-cleft form to be judged more acceptable by those subjects who judged the surface clause boundary to come before the noun phrase. In neither case did we find any such systematic relationship. The correlation between clause-boundary judgments and acceptability judgments for the passive form is r S = -0.005 IN = 48, p > 0.30] ; for the pseudo-cleft form, the correlation is r S = +0.07 [iV = 48, p > 0.30]. These negative results further call into question the rationale of making inferences about the surface structure of active infinitive-complement sentences on the basis of the acceptability/unacceptability of passive and/or pseudo-cleft forms.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The intuitional results as they stand leave the issue of the surface structure of believe-type infinitive-complement sentences unresolved, as does the present status of grammatical theory. We are not inclined to take seriously the idea that the surface structure of these sentences is actually ambiguous, as our data might seem to suggest if taken at face value. Therefore, the intuitional results for the believe-type sentences-insofar as they are equivocal -are themselves in need of some interpretation.

It is in fact possible to interpret our data as compatible with either of the contending grammatical analyses. Consider first the view that, for believe- type infinitive-complement sentences, the surface-structure clause boundary falls immediately after the matrix verb, rather than after the noun phrase following it. Given this way of looking at things, one could argue that those subjects who judge the boundary to fall immediately after the matrix verb are in fact responding to the surface structure of the sentence, while those who judge the boundary to fall after the noun phrase are treating the believe-type sentences on analogy with force-type sentences (where the clause boundary does occur after the noun phrase).

The other grammatical analysis is that for believe-type sentences the clause boundary falls after the noun phrase in surface structure, but before it in deep structure. On this account, those subjects who judge the boundary to fall immediately after the matrix verb are responding to the deep-structure configuration, where the noun phrase is the subject of the embedded sentence.

16 Kempet, CatUn, and Bowers

Those subjects who judge the boundary to fall after the noun phrase are responding to the surface-structure configuration, where the noun phrase is the direct object of the matrix verb.

Each of these accounts interprets the data as compatible with a particular grammatical analysis by invoking some factor (analogy, deep structure) other than the surface structure of the sentence in order to explain those intuitional judgments that are not congruent with the grammatical analysis espoused. While we consider the second of the two accounts to be of greater theoretical interest, we at present have no principled way of choosing between them; too little is known about the determinants of intuitional judgments. In this regard, it is important to note that grammatical theory per se is no more able to shed light on the intuitional data than vice versa, for there is no consensus in either domain.

Given that the issue of the surface structure of believe-type infinitive- complement sentences remains unresolved, we have no basis for deciding between competing structural accounts of click-displacement effects for infinitive-complement sentences. Therefore, the results obtained with these materials do not yield any conclusions about surface-structure vs. deep-structure clauses as units in the immediate processing of sentences.

The problem of the linguistic foundations for psychological explanation extends beyond just this case. For example, Chapin et at. also attempted to conduct an experimentum crucis on surface structure vs. deep structure as the determinant of click-displacement effects, again using sentential materials for which the grammatical analysis is in dispute. Chapin et al. admit that "total agreement [about the structure of their sentences] is at present unachievable" (p. 166), and Fodor et al. take issue with their conclusions on precisely these grounds. It appears that psycholinguists have not been sufficiently careful about selecting sentential materials whose grammatical analysis is secure. This is particularly important insofar as one wishes to make appeal to structural variables as a form of explanation.

APPENDIX I

Experiment 1 Materials

Believe-Type Verbs

1. a. The general preferred the troops to fight against the advancing enemy.


b.

2. a. b.

3. a. b.

4. a. b.

5. a. b.

6. a. b.

The troops were preferred by the general to fight against the advancing enemy. The little gift hated her mother to cook her some cauliflower, Her mother was hated by the little girl to cook her some cauliflower. The shopkeeper desired John to pile some boxes in the corner, John was desired by the shopkeeper to pile some boxes in the c o r n e r .

The teacher wanted the guilty boy to inform on his classmates. The guilty boy was wanted by the teacher to inform on his classmates. The corrupt police can't bear criminals to confess very quickly. Criminals can't be borne by the corrupt police to confess very quickly. The prophet will like the people to renounce their indifference. The people will be liked by the prophet to renounce their indifference.

Force-Type Verbs

7, a, The general defied the troops to fight against the advancing army. b. The troops were defied by the general to fight against the

advancing army. 8. a. The little girl told her mother to cook her some cauliflower.

b. Her mother was told by the little girl to cook her some cauliflower.

9. a. The shopkeeper directed John to pile some boxes in the corner. b. John was directed by the shopkeeper to pile some boxes in the

corner. 10. a. The teacher tempted the guilty boy to inform on his classmates.

b. The guilty boy was tempted by the teacher to inform on his classmates.

11. a. The corrupt police can't force criminals to confess very quickly. b. Criminals can't be forced by the corrupt police to confess very

quickly. 12. a. The prophet will cause the people to renounce their indifference.

b. The people will be caused by the prophet to renounce their indifference.

18 Kempet, Catlin, and Bowers

APPENDIX H

Experiment 2 Materials

1. a. The old woman believed the elf to be invisible. b. The elf was believed by the old woman to be invisible. c. What the old woman believed was the elf to be invisible.

2. a. The journalist reported the miners to be angry. b. The miners were reported by the journalist to be angry. c. What the journalist reported was the miners to be angry.

3. a. The cop discovered the motorist to be drunk. b. The motorist was discovered by the cop to be drunk. c. What the cop discovered was the motorist to be drunk.

4. a. The scout thought the snake to be poisonous. b. The snake was thought by the scout to be poisonous. c. What the scout thought was the snake to be poisonous.

5. a. Clara proved the stranger to be Spanish. b. The stranger was proved by Clara to be Spanish. c. What Clara proved was the stranger to be Spanish.

6. a. Bill guessed the little girl to be lost. b. The little girl was guessed by Bill to be lost. c. What Bill guessed was the little girl to be lost.

7. a, Lenin declared the general to be a traitor. b. The general was declared by Lenin to be a traitor. c. What Lenin declared was the general to be a traitor.

8. a. Mary judged the comedian to be very funny. b. The comedian was judged by Mary to be very funny. c. What Mary judged was the comedian to be very funny.

9. a. John knew the greyhound to be valuable. b. The greyhound was known by John to be valuable. c. What John knew was the greyhound to be valuable.

10. a. Paula understood Bill to be a cartoonist. b. Bill was understood by Paula to be a cartoonist. c. What Paula understood was Bill to be a cartoonist.

11. a. The secretary showed the cashier to be an embezzler. b. The cashier was shown by the secretary to be an embezzler. c. What the secretary showed was the cashier to be an embezzler.

12. a. Marcia supposed Dan to be homesick. b. Dan was supposed by Marcia to be homesick. c. what Marcia supposed was Dan to be homesick.


REFERENCES

Alexander, D., and Kunz, W. J. (1964). Some Classes of Verbs in English, Linguistics Research Project, Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind.

Bevel T. G., Lackner, J. R., and Kirk, R. (1969). The underlying structures of sentences are the primary units of immediate speech processing. Percept. Psychophys. 5: 225-234.

Chapin, P. G., Smith, T. S., and Abrahamson, A. A. (1972). Two factors in perceptual segmentation of speech. J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 11: 164-173.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax,. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass. Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, S. R., and Kiparsky,

P. (eds.), Studies in Honor of.Morris Halle, Holt, Rinehart an~-Winston, New York. Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics

in psychological research. J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav. 12: 335-359. Fodor, J. A., Bever, T. G., and Garrett, M. F. (1974). The Psychology of Language: An

Introduction to Psycholinguistics and Generative Grammar, McGraw-Hill, New York. Postal, P. M. (1974). On Raising." One Rule of English Grammar and lts Theoretical lmpli-

cations, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass. Rosenbaum, P. S. (1967). The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions,

M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass. Thorndike, E. L., and Lorge, J. (1944). The Teacher's Word Book of 30,000 Words,

Bureau of Publications, Teachers' College, Columbia University, New York. Toppino, T. C. (1974). The underlying structures of sentences are not the primary units

of speech processing: A reinterpretation of Bever, Lackner, and Kirk's findings. Percept. Psychophys. 15: 517-518.

Documents

On the surface structure of infinitive-complement sentences