Cliticization: the process by which one word attaches itself te another serves to support the existence of anull auxiliary In the sentence analysed above, the existence of a null auxiliary (elliptical form of could in this case) blocks the clitici zation of "have" onto "she" Ciiticizotion is only possible whena clitic (n't, 's, ‘ve. ‘re, ‘d) immediately follows the expression to which it eliicizes. ie. is subject 40 adjacency condition, and is blocked by the presence of an intervening constituent Exanple: *T wouldn't let [youve done it] T wouldn't jet fyou 0 have done it] The first exemple is wrong because, as we can see in the second one, there isa nul to, 50 the clitic does not immediately follow the expression to which it eliticizes but, on the contrary, it is blocked by the presence of to ‘An auxiliary occupies the head I position of IP Finite verbs occupy the head V of o VP complement, When INFL is unfilled, the tense and the agreement properties of the head V of VP percolate up to INFL Have can occupy two positions in the sentence. 18) the head 3 position of o VP (auxiliary) fb) the head V position of a VP complement of an unfilled NFL. Sentences containing (a finite form) perfective have are tagged by have, whereas sentences containing (« finite form of } causative have are tagged by do @) (IP She T has VP gone to Paris, hasn't she?] The head I position of IP is filled by the perfective auxiliary has, and so the tag contains a copy of this auxiliary. b) (IP SheT VP has her hoir styled to Paris, doesn't she? ‘The head I position of TP is unfilled and hence contains no meaning bearing constituent), and so can only be tagged by the dummy auxiliary does (which corries the same present-tense feature as the unfilled T constituent in the main clause.) ‘Arguments: expressions which typically denote the participants in the activity or event described by a verb ‘Ad juncts: expressions providing additionel information about the celevant activity/event e.g, its lacation, the time at which, if took place, the manner in which it took place ‘An TP-adverb is an adverb which is positioned internally within IP (e 9, certainly) ‘A VP-adverb is an adver’ positioned internally within VP (eg. completely) In the sentence: "They certainly have both completely ignored her." ‘The VP-adverb completely attaches to the V-bar ignored her {V-baradjunct). The 1P-adverb certainly expands the T-bar have beth completely ignored her into the extended I-bar certainly have both completely ignored her (I-bar adjunct); adverbial adjuncts, first merge with intermediate projections like V-bar and I-bar); and secondly they senve to expand 2. catagory of 2 given type into an extended V-bar TF we analyse: Ai What did they do? B: “certainly ignored her completely ignored her The first string is wrong because certainly is an TP-adverb (and adverb which is positioned internally within TP), so it modifies the whole IP, not just the VP Completely isa VP-adverb, 0 the second string is correct, because the VP-adverb is positioned internally within VP Verbs like know/hear/let/watch/see select an IP complement headed by the null infinitive particle ©, whereas verbs lke, ‘expect /judge/report/consider/want ete select an IP complement headed by to Exanple: ‘heard {him 0 speck] Lexpect [him to speak] Cliticization is disallowed in” I wouldnt let {you have done it]" because the bracketed infinitive complement is on IP headed ‘by the null infinitive particle @ between you and "have" whieh blocks cfiticization