Tense and agreement have generally been taken to play a central role in syntactic operations determining the realization of subjects, Case marking and control. The present book by Acrisio Pires, The Minimalist syntax of defective domains, focuses on sentential domains that are defective with respect to these categories – clausal gerunds in English and infinitives in Portuguese – and aims at providing a unified treatment of these non-finite domains in regard to the licensing of different subjects in relation to abstract and morphological Case, tense properties and control.

The various approaches to Case and control in the generative tradition assume in one way or another that overt subject Determiner Phrases (DPs) and control null subjects (PRO) are in complementary distribution. However, certain types of gerunds, here labeled clausal gerunds (CGs), have always constituted a challenge to this assumption, given that they allow both overt and null subjects, as illustrated in (1).

1. (1)

   1. (a) Mary prefers [Bill working at home].

   2. (b) Mary prefers [PRO working at home].

In this book, Pires offers a novel account of these data that does not rely on positing different structures for sentences like (1a) and (1b). His analysis of English CGs is based on recent proposals within the Minimalist Program (Chomsky Reference Chomsky, Martin, Michaels and Uriagereka2000, Reference Chomsky and Kenstowicz2001), which he then extends to the two types of infinitives found in Portuguese, that is, inflected and non-inflected infinitives. In the course of his discussion, Pires introduces new data from Colloquial Brazilian Portuguese (ColBP), where inflection is in the process of being lost on the infinitive and yet overt subjects are licensed, showing that the properties of these infinitives are rather similar to those of English CGs, cf. (2).

1. (2) Colloquial Brazilian Portuguese

   1. (a) A Maria ligou antes de nós sair.the Maria called before of we to-leave‘Mary called before we left.’

   2. (b) A Maria ligou antes de sair.the Maria called before of to-leave‘Mary called before leaving.’

Pires's study offers an insightful discussion of how different syntactic phenomena relate to the feature specification of non-finite categories. More specifically, his analysis of sentential gerunds in English reveals that, although gerund complements may appear superficially similar, they actually project different structures and differ in the feature specifications of their functional projections. Thus, complements of prefer and try may look alike on the surface, but, as discussed in detail in the book, there are a number of properties that distinguish them. Among these is the fact that complements of prefer allow an overt subject in the embedded clause, whereas complements of try do not. Pires demonstrates that this difference correlates with other contrasts regarding the tense and aspectual distinctions allowed, and develops an analysis that relies on the idea that the latter, though not the former, are Tense (T)-defective.

One major concern of the book is how the overall approach developed relates to an explanatory theory of language acquisition and change. Focusing on the historical changes that have affected inflected infinitives in Portuguese, Pires offers a learnability explanation for the origin of inflected infinitives and for the syntactic effects of the loss of inflection on infinitives in contemporary ColBP.

The book is divided into four chapters. Chapter 1, ‘The Minimalist syntax of clausal gerunds’, is devoted to the analysis of CGs in English. Pires considers the distribution and properties of this class of gerunds and argues that, contrary to what Reuland (1983) has claimed, CGs are [+ tense]. In addition, he proposes that English CGs do not project a Complementizer Phrase (CP) but are bare TP projections. He then reviews the problems that are raised by these constructions for theories of control based on null Case/tense (Chomsky & Lasnik Reference Chomsky, Lasnik, Jacobs, Stechow, Sternefeld and Vennemann1993, Martin Reference Martin1996) and argues in favor of an alternative analysis which takes obligatory control PRO to be a copy resulting from movement of the controller DP (as proposed for infinitives by Hornstein 1999). This enables him to capture the alternations between an overt subject DP and a control null subject without having to appeal to different syntactic structures or different feature specifications for gerunds with overt and null subjects. His analysis follows Reuland (1983) in assuming that the inflectional head corresponding to -ing in CGs, which Pires takes to be T, carries an uninterpretable Case feature that needs to be valued by an appropriate probe (a matrix T or V). Once this Case feature is valued, the T head of the gerund can value the uninterpretable Case feature of the subject. This yields a CG with an overt subject. Alternatively, the external argument of the CG may move to the matrix subject position before Case valuation by T takes place. This situation results in a CG with a control null subject. As argued in this chapter, this analysis can accommodate all of the core properties of CG mentioned above.

Chapter 2, ‘Clausal versus TP-defective gerunds: Control without tense’, centers on gerundive complements that are structurally more defective than CGs, namely complements of perception verbs, aspectual verbs and verbs such as try and avoid. Pires shows that the latter should be kept distinct from CGs, not only because they do not allow an overt subject but also because they have defective Tense. He then addresses the consequences that the lack of Tense in these complements has for approaches to restructuring and theories of control. The analysis he proposes is that these gerunds do not project a TP and hence lack a source for Case valuation of the embedded thematic subject. For this reason, the only option available for the embedded subject is to move to the matrix subject position, yielding an obligatory control structure. The chapter concludes with an examination of perception verb complements. Pires claims that these are even more structurally defective than TP-defective gerunds and should be analyzed as vPs.

Chapter 3, ‘Agreement, case, control and movement in infinitives’, deals with Portuguese infinitives, and provides evidence that non-inflected infinitives display properties of obligatory control (OC), whereas inflected infinitives display non-obligatory control (NOC) properties. Pires extends the A-movement analysis proposed in the previous chapter to the different OC structures in Portuguese, and argues that it thus becomes possible to capture the contrast between NOC and OC and its connection with the inflectional morphology of infinitives in Portuguese.

Finally, chapter 4, ‘Syntactic change: The development of inflected and non-inflected infinitives’, focuses on the connection between syntactic theory and language change. It analyzes two instances of morphological change that have had syntactic effects in the history of Portuguese infinitives, and proposes an account of these changes in terms of a theory of language acquisition that emphasizes the interaction between principles of Universal Grammar (UG) and the primary linguistic data available to the child (Lightfoot 1999). The first instance of change discussed concerns the emergence of inflected infinitives in the history of Portuguese. Pires considers the two major proposals for their origin and provides an interesting cue-based argument in favor of the view that they developed from a finite verb form (the Latin imperfect subjunctive) and not from uninflected infinitives. Briefly put, the incomplete identification of the cues required for setting up the subjunctive properties is what led to the rise of the inflected infinitive.

The other major change discussed in this chapter is the ongoing loss of inflected infinitives in Colloquial BP (ColBP). According to Pires, overt inflection on infinitives is being lost in dialects of ColBP to the effect that there is no longer any morphological difference between inflected and non-inflected infinitives. However, the loss of inflection has not affected all of the syntactic properties of the original inflected infinitive: it has blocked the licensing of pro but not that of an overt subject. In other words, infinitival clauses in ColBP have syntactic properties that are strikingly similar to those of CGs in English, as seen in (2) above. Pires links overt verbal morphology and the licensing of overt subjects to separate cues provided by UG, thus accounting for the fact that the loss of agreement inflection did not eliminate the possibility of overt non-ECM (Exceptionally Case Marked) subjects in infinitives in ColBP.

The chapter ends with a review of other changes that have taken place in the grammars of Brazilian Portuguese speakers since the mid-nineteenth century, particularly regarding the position of verbs and clitic placement. Pires suggests that all of these changes are related to loss of V-raising to a point-of-view head located above TP, a process that is assumed to operate in European Portuguese and Galician (following Uriagereka Reference Uriagereka1995). While I found this last section somewhat speculative, the overall discussion in chapter 4 is rather compelling.

The Minimalist syntax of defective domains is an invaluable source for anyone interested in the syntax of defective sentential domains. One aspect of the book that is particularly appealing is that it focuses on non-finite domains that have not received much attention in the literature. In addition, the book introduces new empirical data, which are tackled by Pires in such a way as to bring new insights into old issues. The proposals developed are well-grounded in theory and data and present just the right balance between the two. This said, let me now move on to comment on two specific aspects of Pires's argumentation.

One of the central ideas of the book is that it is possible to assign a uniform structure to non-finite domains with an overt subject and with a control null subject (cf. (1a), (2a) vs. (1b), (2b)). Pires claims that this is a welcome result, given that ‘there are no relevant empirical distinctions in their feature specification that can be taken to be responsible for the distinction between CGs with control null subjects vs. CGs with overt subjects’ (15). However, even though this might be true for CGs in complement position, it is clearly not true of absolute CGs. Reuland (1983: 128, examples (60b–d)) mentions the following contrasts:

1. (3)

   1. (a) John kept walking slowly, the rain drenching the road.

   2. (b) John kept walking slowly while PRO drenching the road with insecticides.

   3. (c) *John kept walking slowly while the rain drenching the road with insecticides.

As observed by Reuland, absolute CGs with an overt subject do not tolerate clause introducers such as while, although or after. Taking these elements to be in C, one might be compelled to assume that the two types of gerund differ with respect to whether they project a CP or not. Thus, the contrast above shows that there are empirical differences between the two types of gerund that cannot be disregarded.

Similar observations apply to infinitives in Portuguese. Inflected infinitives are incompatible with wh-movement to a position inside the infinitival clause (cf. (4a)); non-inflected infinitives are not (cf. (4b)).

1. (4)

   1. (a) *Precisamos de uma faca com que cortarmos o pão.need.1.pl of a knife with which to-cut-1.pl the bread

   2. (b) Precisamos de uma faca com que cortar o pão.need.1.pl of a knife with which to-cut-1.pl the bread‘We need a knife with which to cut the bread.’

Again, this contrast shows that there are relevant empirical differences between the two types of complement, and yet these are not discussed anywhere in the book.

Another weakness I find in the book concerns some of the evidence given in favor of the idea that non-inflected infinitives display interpretive properties of OC, while inflected infinitives show NOC properties. Even though I do not question the general conclusions reached, I find some of the examples problematic. Pires claims that the null subject of a non-inflected infinitival complement needs to have a c-commanding antecedent, whereas the null subject of an inflected infinitive does not. He offers the following data in support of this claim:

1. (5)

   1. (a) [Os pais do Paulo_k]_i lamentam PRO_*k/i chegar tarde.the parents of-the Paulo regret to arrive late‘Paulo's parents regret to have arrived late.’

   2. (b) Os nossos_i pais lamentam pro _i chegarmos tarde.the our parents regret to arrive-1.pl late‘Our parents regret our arriving late.’

The problematic example is (5a). The third-person singular form of any inflected infinitive in Portuguese is not distinguishable on the surface from the form of the uninflected infinitive. Thus, (5a) is potentially ambiguous between a structure with an inflected infinitive (and hence with pro as subject) and a structure with an uninflected infinitive (with subject PRO). This renders Pires's judgement puzzling that the embedded null subject must be interpreted as referring to the entire subject noun phrase rather than to the noun-phrase internal constituent Paulo. By his own account, (5a), in its reading as a third-person singular inflected infinitive, should be an NOC environment. This issue is not addressed anywhere in the book, and similar objections pertain to the evidence regarding sloppy readings under ellipsis.

In spite of these criticisms, I consider this book an important contribution to our understanding of the syntax of non-finite domains, Case theory and control. For this reason, I strongly recommend it to any scholar interested in these topics.