Argument/Event Structure and Clausal Embedding

In my research I investigate how embedded clauses integrate with the clause-embedding nouns and verbs: what roles they play in argument structures, how they affect the type of the event that the verb describes, and the meanings of the resulting sentences. I proposed that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the syntactic category of the embedded clause and the kind of role it can play in the argument structure of a verb: nominalized clauses always receive the same interpretations as DP arguments, whereas bare embedded clauses with speech and attitude verbs always describe propositional content of the eventuality that the verb denotes. This suggests a very tight syntax-semantics correspondence, which is not a logical necessity, and implies that only nominal arguments are true arguments of verbs—bare CPs are always verbal modifiers. I argued that these two paths of clausal embedding lead to a number of consequences in how sentences with embedded clauses are interpreted, including ambiguities with verbs of speech, presence of factivity and veridicality inferences, possibility of clausal movement, and ability to form indirect wh-dependencies.