Romance is so complex
In this paper I want to look at what the evidence from Complex Predicates can tell us about the design parameters of an empirically adequate theory of Universal Grammar (UG). This is a fertile field for investigation because, according to the standard assumptions of the field, complex predicates are monoclausal with respect to some properties and multiclausal with respect to others and this tension can only be resolved by giving up some cherished beliefs. After introducing the problem in Section 1, Sections 2–4 will lay out the basis of the dilemma. Sections 2 and 3 argue that Romance complex predicates have an articulated rightwardbranching phrase structure, and cannot be analyzed as some sort of verb compound or verbal complex while conversely Section 4 shows how in many respects a complex predicate does behave just like a single predicate. Hence we require a notion of monoclausality that these complex predicates satisfy despite their articulated phrase structure. Section 5 then draws out the implications of this result for theories that have monostratal syntactic levels (in the sense of Ladusaw 1988) such as LFG, HPSG or Categorial Grammar. While many of the same concerns occur in a multistratal theory such as GB or RG (and have long been debated in those frameworks), there is more room for movement in such a theory, because complex predicates can be multiclausal on one stratum but monoclausal on another stratum. In a monostratal theory, the problem is more cleanly cut – on each level, one must regard a complex predicate as either one clause or as embedded clauses – and if a