__ 4 ` f KEN SAFIR i PERCEPTION, SELECTION, AND ~' ' ! F i' , G , 1 STRI7CTURAL ECONOMY* I n this essay I will explore the syntactic expression of the notion `clause' by focusing on some syntactic and semantic properties of bare infinitive (B~ complements to perception verbs in English. I shall argue briefly that perception BI complements must be clausal, and then turn in more detail to the issue of what sort of clause the B I complement must be. It will be established that the categorical nature of the p w~~~ ~ _ perception BI complement as IP or VP is contingent on selectional properties of the be contextually influenced by modality and perception verb, properties which may negation. More specifically, an interpretative distinction between `vision and `non- ~ vision' see first suggested by Napoli (1988) will be shown, contrary to her proposal, _ ~~n L8! A$98.c I ( to provide the key to the contrast in the selection of clausal types. The IP/VP distinction will be shown to correlate wikh the viabIlity of interpretations for the BI ~t~~ ~ clause that are `temporally independent of the matrix clause. Given the IP/VP further that the peculiarly limited distribution of distinction, it will be demonstrated the expletive formative there in BI complements may be predicted from indepen- _ ~ ~~Bp. ~ f ~l~ ~~~.~~~~ ~ , m w ad^ denfly motivated syntactic principles that determine clausal structure. d ~ ' ' ~~ f Lld1 f.~f~d`8~~, C~17. ' 9 ~ ) 1. BI COMPLEMENTS ARE CLAUSAL ~ ~, - ~ ~~ ~~~~~~ t~ ~ ^~ f ~Jith respect to its syntax, the bare infinirive (B~ complement in (1) has 4 A c° ~~~ J~~~~~ ~ been analyzed variously as an NP (e.g., Akmajian 1977, Burzio 1986), a , . ~ ! ~~1~ fir" _ y c :~- ~y non-constituent consisting of an NP followed by a VP (e.g., Napoli 19 , ~ ~~ ~.~ ~~ ~~ ~ . art. p' `~ an IP (=Sin earlier theories), and a VP with a VP-internal subject (e.g, S towell 1983, 297). _ __ee~./ ~~~~em,.. ~ ~~~~~~~ , p ~ (1) Carmen saw Peter kiss Emma. ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~a n tliE 1~ Arguments against analyzing the BI complements to perception verbs as , ~ '~ ~~~ °~~~ - NPs may be found in Gee (1977) and Barss (1985). Napoli. (1988) _ :or~~~,a;~rt, f~~s~s, p ~~ ~a ~r~~~, $P attempts to analyze small clauses, including perception BI complements, ~~~~ 5 ~ d.~~ t~~~~ ~~v~ ~ ~m ~ ~c~ c as non -clauses. She argues that subject idioms, such as Mum's the wor or ~~~~~r ~~ t~~~~ - q Y y 7'he jig is up, specifically require a subject function; hence they will fail in ~ "h~ j~~~~~~ g~,~~~..~_ any structure where there is no structural subject position. She then points ~ lil~~ i'~S~e`~(t:~3 ~f~~~~~~, ~i~ >~ S~9~P~ ~C~tli S r ~rrt~r}c~ ~~ ~~~° a , g~ ~1~~~ out that these idioms are excluded in a number of small clause environ- ee ~, e~~ c"~9 ~ ~ ,~~~~ ~~~~~ ~ menu, such as *I want mum the word or *I consider the jig up. There Thy j~~arr~al is ~b~3r~~t~~ ire »Sc~~ic~9~ e~~/~4 str~~e.., I would like to thank Mats Rooth, Veneeta Srivastav, Maria Bittner, Richard Kayne, >~;~ 'f ~, t~ ~ Angelika Kratzer, Irene Heim, Masatake Arimoto, Michael Hegarty, David Pesetsky, and a t the CiJNY Graduate Center and the Tokyo Lingiristics Forum meeting at ~~~ ~~,~~~ ~ {~ +~~~~~~ audiences Otsuma University for useful discussion of these and related issues. The usual disclaimers ~Bb~~Ci tj~~ r~~~• f8.27,0/11 ~~ Q i~~~ ~, obtain. ~ ~~~ -~ ~ ~ ~~ Natural Language Semanrics 2:47-70, 1993. O 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in ll~eNetherlands.