The question of what structure must be assigned to the constructions with complementives discussed in Section 6.1 has given rise to a lengthy and still unresolved debate. According to some, the subject is part of the AP: it occupies a designated subject position in a so-called Small Clause configuration, where it saturates the external thematic role assigned by the adjectival predicate. According to others, the subject is generated in the regular object position of the verb, the subject-predicate relation being established by other means. This discussion finds its origin in Stowell (1983), who defends the former, and Williams (1980), who defends the latter proposal. An influential Dutch advocate of Stowellʼs proposal is Hoekstra (1984a/2004: part IV); Williams’ proposal has been defended by Neeleman (1994b). Bowers (1993) and Hale & Keyser (1993) propose structures that in a sense reconcile the two approaches.
      The term supplementive has been adopted from Quirk et al. (1985). The supplementives, and especially the ways in which they can be distinguished from the manner adverbs, have been the subject of a classical debate between Van den Toorn (1969/1970a/1970b), Koelmans (1970) and Zwaan (1970); cf. also Van Gestel (1992). The distinction between supplementive-I and supplementive–II was first discussed in Broekhuis (1995). Other relevant studies are Jansen (1986/1987), Kooij (1987) and Den Dikken (1987). For theoretical background on the appositive use of the adjective, we refer the reader to Alexiadou et al. (2007: Part III) and McCawley (1998).
      The discussion of the two classes of adjectives with clausal subjects in Section 6.5, sub II, is mainly based on Cinque (1990) and Bennis (2004). More extensive, partly contradictory, discussions of the control adjectives in Section 6.5, sub III, can be found in Van Haaften (1991) and Vanden Wyngaerd (1994; ch.6). The literature on the easy-to-please -construction, which is also referred to as the tough (movement) construction, is very extensive. The discussion about the proper analysis of this construction has certainly not been settled, which may be clear from the fact that it has been a recurrent theme in Chomskyʼs work ever since Chomsky (1973). Our discussion of this construction in Section 6.5, sub IVA, has adopted Bennis & Wehrmannʼs (1987) analysis of this construction as its point of departure; another study that must be mentioned is Dik (1985). The modal infinitive constructions in Section 6.5, sub IVB, will be discussed more extensively in Chapter 9. The discussion of PP subjects in Section 6.6 has again profited much from the discussion in Bennis & Wehrmann (1987); see also Van Haaften (1985).