In linguistics, a small clause consists of a subject and its predicate, but lacks an overt expression of tense. Small clauses have the semantic subject-predicate characteristics of a clause, and have some, but not all, properties of a syntactic constituent. Structural analyses of small clauses vary according to whether a flat or layered analysis is pursued. The small clause is also related to the phenomena of raising-to-object, exceptional case-marking, accusativus cum infinitivo, and object control.
History
The two main analyses of small clauses were proposed by Edwin Williams (1975, 1980) and Tim Stowell (1981). Williams' analysis follows the Theory of Predication, where the "subject" is the "external argument of a maximal projection". In contrast, Stowell's theory follows the Theory of Small Clauses, supported by linguists such as Chomsky, Aarts, and Kitagawa. This theory uses X-bar theory to treat small clauses as constituents. Linguists debate which analysis to pursue, as there is evidence for both approaches.
Williams (1975, 1980) The term "small clause" was coined by Edwin Williams in 1975, who specifically looked at "reduced relatives, adverbial modifier phrases, and gerundive phrases". The following three examples are treated in Williams' 1975 paper as "small clauses", as cited in Balazs 2012. However, not all linguists consider these to be small clauses according to the term's modern definition.
The man [ driving the bus ] is Norton's best friend. John decided to leave, [ thinking the party was over ]. [ John’s evading his taxes ] infuriates me.
The modern definition of a small clause is an [NP XP] in a predicative relationship. This definition was proposed by Edwin Williams in 1980, who introduced the concept of Predication. He proposed that the subject NP and the predicate XP are related via co-indexation, which is made possible by c-command. In Williams' analysis, the [NP XP] of a small clause does not form a constituent.
Stowell (1981) Timothy Stowell in 1981 analyzed the small clause as a constituent, pg. 87-88. and proposed a structure using X-bar theory. Stowell proposes that the subject is defined as an NP occurring in a specifier position, that case is assigned in the specifier position, and that not all categories have subjects. His analysis explains why case-marked subjects cannot occur in infinitival clauses, although NPs can be projected up to an infinitival clause's specifier position. Stowell considers the following examples to be small clauses and constituents.
I consider [ John very stupid ] I expect [ that sailor off my ship ] We feared [ John killed by the enemy ] I saw [ John come to the kitchen ]
Contexts What does and does not qualify as a small clause varies in the literature: the example sentences in (8) contain (what some theories of syntax judge to be) small clauses. In each example, the posited small clause is in boldface, and the underlined expression functions as a predicate over the nominal immediately to its left, which is the subject. The verbs that license small clauses are a heterogeneous set, and fall into five classes: raising-to-object or ECM verbs like consider and want in (8a); these were the focus of early discussions of small clauses verbs like call and name, which subcategorize for an object NP and a predicative expression; see (8b) verbs like wipe and pound, which allow the appearance of a resultative predicate; see (8c) perception verbs like see and hear which allow the appearance of a bare infinitive; see (8d) verbs like believe and judge which allow the appearance of infinitival to; see (8e)
8.contexts for small clauses in English a.(i)Susan considers [ Sam a dope ].(ii)We want [ you sober ]. b.(i)Jim called [ me a liar ].(ii)They named [ him Pedro ]. c.(i)Fred wiped [ the table clean ].(ii)Larry pounded [ the nail flat ]. d.(i)We saw [ Fred leave ].(ii)Did you hear [ them arrive ]? e.(i)Larry believes [ that to be folly ].(ii)Do you judge [ it to be possible ]?
A trait that the examples in (8a-b-c) have in common is that the small clause lacks a verb. Indeed, this is sometimes taken as a defining aspect of small clauses, i.e. to qualify as a small clause, a verb must be absent. If, however, one allows a small clause to contain a verb, then the sentences in (8d-e) can also be treated as containing small clauses: The similarity across the sentences (8a-b-c) and (8d-e) is obvious, since the same subject-predicate relationship is present in all these sentences. Hence if one treats sentences (8a-b-c) as containing small clauses, one can also treat sentences (50e-f) as containing small clauses. A defining characteristic of all five contexts for English small clauses in (8a-b-c-d-e) is that the tense associated with finite clauses, which contain a finite verb, is absent.
Structural analyses Broadly speaking, there are three competing analyses of the structure of small clauses.
the flat structure analysis treats the subject and predicate of the small clause as sister constituents the layered structure analysis treats the subject and predicate as a single "small clause" (SC) constituent the X-bar theory analysis treats the subject and predicate as a single constituent projected from the head of the small clause, which may be V, N, A, or P (with some analyses having additional functional structure)
Flat structure The flat structure organizes small clause material into two distinct sister constituents.
The a-trees on the left are the phrase structure trees, and the b-trees on the right are the dependency trees. The key aspect of these structures is that the small clause material consists of two separate sister constituents.
The flat analysis is preferred by those working in dependency grammars and representational phrase structure grammars (e.g. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar and Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar).
Layered structure The layered structure organizes small clause material into one constituent. The phrase structure trees are again on the left, and the dependency trees on the right. To mark the small clause in the phrase structure trees, the node label SC is used.
The layered analysis is preferred by those working in the Government and Binding framework and its tradition, for examples see Chomsky, Ouhalla, Culicover, Haegeman and Guéron.
X-Bar Theory structures See X-Bar Theory for a general exploration of X-Bar Theory.
X-bar theory predicts that a head (X) will project into an intermediate constituent (X') and a maximal projection (XP). There were three common analyses of the internal structure of a small clause under X-Bar theory. Here they are each presented as showing the NP AP small clause complement in the sentence (highlighted in bold), "I consider (NP)Mary (AP)smart":
Analysis 1: symmetric constituent
In this analysis, neither of the constituents determine the category, meaning that it is an exocentric construction. Some linguists believe that the label of this structure can be symmetrically determined by the constituents, and others believe that this structure lacks a label altogether.Moro, Andrea. (2008). The anomaly of copular sentences. Unpublished manuscript, University of Venice. In order to indicate a predicative relationship between the subject (in this case, the NP Mary), and the predicate (AP smart), some have suggested a system of co-indexation, where the subject must c-command any predicate associated with it.
This analysis is not compatible with X-bar theory because X-bar theory does not allow for headless constituents, additionally this structure may not be an accurate representation of a small clause because it lacks an intermediate functional element that connects the subject with the predicate. Evidence of this element can be seen as an overt realization in a variety of languages such as Welsh, Norwegian, and English, as in the examples below (with the overt predicative functional category highlighted in bold):
I regard Fred as insane. I consider Fred as my best friend.
Some have taken this as evidence that this structure does not adequately portray the structure of a small clause, and that a better structure must include some intermediate projection that combines the subject and the predicate which would assign a head to the constituent.
Analysis 2: projection of the predicate
In this analysis, the small clause can be identified as a projection of the predicate (in this example, the predicate would be the 'smart' in 'Mary smart'). In this view, the specifier of the structure (in this case, the NP 'Mary') is the subject of the headBalazs, Julie E. (2012). The Syntax of Small Clauses. Masters Thesis, Cornell University. (in this case, the A 'smart'). This analysis builds on Chomsky's model of phrase structure and is proposed by Stowell and Contreras.
Analysis 3: projection of a functional category
The PrPBowers, J. (1993). The Syntax of Predication. Linguistic Inquiry,24(4), pg. 596-597. Retrieved from (predicate phrase) category (also analyzed as AgrP, PredP,Bailyn, J. F. (1995). A Configurational Approach to Russian ‘Free’Word Order. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca. and PBalazs, Julie E. (2012). The Syntax of Small Clauses. pg. 23. Masters Thesis, Cornell University.), was proposed for a few reasons, some of which are outlined below:
This structure helps to account for coordination where the categories of the items being coordinated must be the same. This accounts for the mystery of phrases such as (11) below, where a predicative adjective phrase (AP) is coordinated with a predicative noun phrase (NP), and this coordination of unlike categories is grammatical. The PrP analysis solves this problem by treating the constituents being coordinated as intermediate projection of the Pr head, namely Pr', as in (12). Mayor Shinn considered Eulalie [AP talented ] and [NP a tyrant ] Mayor Shinn considered [PrP Eulalie [Pr' (P) [AP talented ]] and [Pr' (P) [NP a tyrant ]] This structure answers the question of the category of the word as in small clause constructions such as I regard Fred as my best friend. This structure was an issue if as is analyzed as a preposition, as prepositions do not take adjective phrase complements. However, analyzing as as the overt realization of the Pr head is consistent with X-bar theory.
Additionally, some have theorized that a combination of the three structures can illustrate why the subjects of verbal small clauses and adjectival small clauses seem to behave differently, as noted by Basilico:Basilico, D. (2003). The Topic of Small Clauses. Linguistic Inquiry,34(1), pg. 2. Retrieved from
The prisoner seems/appears to be intelligent. The prisoner seems/appears intelligent. The prisoner seems/appears to leave every day at noon. *The prisoner seems/appears leave every day at noon.