Please consider the following:
(0) For Bill to have been arrested so soon was disappointing.
(1) ?It was disappointing for Bill to have been arrested so soon.
If the sentence (1) is grammatical, it seems to suggest, that disappointing is an adjective which has one theta-role available. Compare:
(2) That Bill has been arrested so soon disappointed Mary.
(3) That Bill has been arrested so soon was disappointing (for Mary).
(4) It was disappointing that Bill was arrested so soon.
(5) That Bill was arrested so soon was disappointing.
One analysis might posit two traces in the sentence (0):
[CP For Bill1 to have been arrested t1 so soon]2 was disappointing t2.
So the D-structure is:
e2 was disappointing [CP for e1 to have been arrested Bill so soon].
It makes the analysis of sentence (1) obvious. If the analysis is incorrect, how could you explain (1)?
Another analysis might be (D-structure):
[CP for e1 to have been arrested Bill so soon] is disappointing.
In this case the CP has to move to a position after disappointing:
e2 is disappointing [CP for e1 to have been arrested Bill so soon].
But what position could it move into? In addition it should leave a trace, not "it".
Which of those two analyses is correct (if any)? If the first one is correct it seems like "is disappointing" works like an unaccusative/passive verb. How to analyze it? "disappointing" is an adjective, but what is the copula? (I or V?)
Some analyzes are:
[I' [I -s] [VP [V' [V be] [AP [A' [A disappointing] [CP trace] ] ] ] ] ]
"-s" is an auxiliary "be" is a verb
[I' [I is] [AP [A' [A disappointing] [CP trace] ] ] ]
"is" is an auxiliary
What is the correct analysis according to GB?