The Category P Features, Projections, Interpretation

196
.
(i) Aspectual have:
Jones (1991) notes that the occurrence of the aspectual have is infelicitous in
object gap constructions (42b,c), as opposed to its felicitous occurrence in the fully
clausal Infinitival Relative (IR) (40a): 32,33
(42) a. “Moby Dick” is a famous book [ IR Op i [PRO to have read t i ]] (before
you make it to college).
b. ?? “Moby Dick” i will be easy [to have read e i ] (before you make it
to college).
c. *I bought it i [to have read e i ] (at least before graduating).
The aspectual (perfective) have is claimed by Williams (1984) to occur only if T
(an I-head in Williams’ terminology) is present, as it has to interact with it. The
ungrammaticality of (42b,c) thus supports the claim that the verbal constituent in
object gap constructions does not have a T-head.
(ii) Non-intentional be:
Williams (1984) notes that non-clausal constructions allow only intentional
predicates after the copula, whereas clausal constructions admit both. Furthermore,
Williams assumes a distinction between an auxiliary verb be (moving into T), and a
main verb be (not moving into T). Only the latter is associated with intentional
interpretation, and therefore is incompatible with non-intentional predicates (e.g.
proud of). 34 Given this, consider the following contrast between the fully clausal IR
(43a), and the object gap constructions (43b,c):
(43) a. My son John is a boy [ CP to be proud of ]
32 Jones (1991) follows Williams (1984), where a distinction between fully clausal and non-clausal
constructions is made. Williams argues that the alleged non-clausal constructions exhibit an array of
properties (only some of which are illustrated in the text) that indicate that they do not have access to
the I(nflectional) system in the way that full clauses do. The comparison in Jones (1991) is between
Infinitival Relatives (IR), which are assumed to be clausal, and the verbal constituents in object gap
constructions which, by hypothesis, are not clausal.
33 In Jones (1991) to is viewed as part of the VP, rather than as a distinct P-head (see 5.4.2 for some
support for the latter).
34 As the two be can co-occur, it is possible to distinguish them using a potentially intentional predicate
such as obnoxious. Thus John is obnoxious is ambiguous between intentional and non-intentional
interpretation, whereas John is being obnoxious is only intentional, as the second be is a main verb be.
Being intentional, it forces the intentional interpretation.