Practical Information - Generative Linguistics in the Old World

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Visser’s Generalization and the c-command condition on ControlJacek Witkoś & Sylwiusz śychlińskiAdam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, PolandThe aim of this presentation is to address the issue of Visser’s Generalization (henceforthVG), holding that subject control (hence SC) verbs are incompatible with the passive, andpropose a solution based on a combination of the passive seen as smuggling and ObligatoryControl seen as A-movement (Hornstein 2001, Hornstein & Polinsky 2010). We will bearguing that Control holds under c-command:(1) In the LF representation of Obligatory Control the controller must c-command its tracein the subject position (PRO).The VG effect arises as the condition in (1) is not respected in the passive of SC verbs.The nature of VG: the generalization, put forward in Visser (1973), holds that structures ofsubject-oriented predication resist the passive transformation, specifically, SC verbs are notcompatible with the passive transformation (cf. 2b). Interestingly, the same matrix controlpredicates shifting to OC allow for the passive (cf. 2d). Similarly, OC verbs shifted to subjectcontrol mode disallow the passive (cf. 3d):(2) a. He promised me [PRO to open my gifts for me]. (SC)b. *I was promised to open my gifts for me. (SC + passive)c. He promised me to be allowed to [PRO to open my gifts]. (SC shifts to OC)d. I was promised to be allowed to open my gifts. (OC + passive)(3) a. He asked me to open my gifts. (OC)b. I was asked to open my gifts. (OC + passive)c. He asked me to be allowed to open my gifts for me. (OC shifts to SC)d. *I was asked to be allowed to open my gifts for me. (SC + passive)Van Urk (2011) narrows the scope of the VG effect further and observes that it applies onlywhen the matrix object is promoted to [spec,T], while it does not apply in the (impersonal)passive construction without promotion:(4) Er werd mij beloofd om me op de hoogte te houden.there was me-DAT promise-PAST COMP me-DAT on the height to keep-INF‘It was promised to me to keep me informed.’Thus the nature of the VG effect does not consist in the incompatibility of the passive andSubject Control interpretation but rather the clash between Subject Control interpretation andthe promotion of the object. In solving the VG puzzle we will assume the smuggling theory ofthe passive in Collins (2005a), whose key element is (5) below:(5) a. within an articulated projection of the passive clause the constituent includingthe passive participle, the object DP and (possibly) the remainder of thecomplement domain of the verb ([ PartP Part [ VP V DPo]]) is moved to theposition of [spec,Voice] around the implicit Agent in [spec,v]; next the DPobject is moved to [spec,T], in line with MLC:b. [ VoiceP [ PartP Part [ VP V DPo]] Voice-by [ vP DP Agent v [ PartP …t…]]]]
The genuine nature of the VG effect: The key element of our working hypothesis is that thehead of Participial Phrase takes VP as its complement, thus the whatever material VPcontains, including the infinitive, is promoted around the implicit Agent to the position of[spec, Voice]. Consider OC with promotion, where the implicit Agent (pro 1 ) is in [spec,v]:(6) a. Mary was persuaded to leave the party.b. [ TP Mary 2 T-was [ VoiceP [ PartP Part [ VP persuaded [ ApplP Mary 2 Appl [ VP t V [ CPMary 2 /PRO to leave the party]]]]]] Voice [ vP pro 1 [ v’ v PartP]]]The inf initive is carried along as part of PrtP above pro 1 and the object is raised to the subjectposition. In this representation (1) holds, as Mary 2 c-commands both its trace within PartP andPRO/Mary 2 .Now consider the passive of the SC verb with promotion in (7); the smuggling step ofthe operation removes PRO from the c-command domain of its controller (the implicit Agentpro 1 in [spec,v]):(7) a. *Mary was promised to leave the party.b. [ TP Mary 2 T-was [ VoiceP [ PartP Part [ VP promised [ ApplP Mary 2 Appl [ VP t V [ CPpro 1 /PRO to leave the party]]]]]] Voice [ vP pro 1 v PrtP]]]There is a clear difference between the representations of OC in (6) and of SC in (7); while inthe former the position of PRO is c-commanded by its controller (Mary 2 ), in the latter it is not,so the VG effect is a violation of postulate (1).This solution leads to three expectations confirmed in the literature: (a) lack of objectpromotion, meaning no smuggling of the infinitive and PRO out of the c-command domain ofthe implicit Agent, does not disturb Subject Control (van Urk 2011); (b) PRO requires c-command by its controller at LF, which holds true once the apparently problematic cases ofintraposition and extraposition in Super Equi and the concept of logophoric extension from(Landau 2001, 2010) are reconsidered; (c) the smuggled constituent including the infinitivedoes not reconstruct to its original position, as this would equate (2b) with (4).(8) a. ??The magazines were sent to herself by Maryb. The magazines were sent to Mary 1 ’s mother by her 1 (the idiot 1 herself)yesterday.c. Mary was told to meet Betty 1 ’s daughter by her 1 /the idiot 1 on Friday.Ex. (8a-b) from Collins (2005a) show that PrtP does not reconstruct, bleeding Conditions Aand C; ex. (8c) shows the same effect when an infinitive is carried along within PrtP and notreconstructed. One of the reasons for which PartP, and other smuggling vehicles, do notreconstruct is that they feed another movement operation, Wh-movement in (9a-b, Starke2001) or anaphor raising to T (in 9d, Chomsky 1995):(9) a. ?Who is it unclear [how many pictures of who] he wants to shoot tb. Who is it unclear [how many portraits of who] Amelie drew t?c. John wondered which picture of himself Bill saw.d. John self-wondered [which x, x a picture of t self ] [ Bill saw x]Any reconstruction of the smuggling vehicle makes the ensuing further movement violateMLC. In conclusion, the account of VG developed above points to the conflictingrequirements between the c-command condition on Control and promotion in the passive as
Page 1 and 2:
GLOW Newsletter #70, Spring 2013Edi
Page 3 and 4:
INTRODUCTIONWelcome to the 70 th GL
Page 5:
Welcome to GLOW 36, Lund!The 36th G
Page 8 and 9:
REIMBURSEMENT AND WAIVERSThe regist
Page 10 and 11:
STATISTICS BY COUNTRYCountry Author
Page 12 and 13:
15:45-16:00 Coffee break16:00-17:00
Page 14 and 15:
14:00-15:00 Adam Albright (MIT) and
Page 16 and 17:
17:00-17:30 Anna Maria Di Sciullo (
Page 18 and 19:
16.10-16.50 Peter Svenonius (Univer
Page 20 and 21:
GLOW 36 WORKSHOP PROGRAM IV:Acquisi
Page 22 and 23:
The impossible chaos: When the mind
Page 24 and 25:
17. Friederici, A. D., Trends Cogn.
Page 26 and 27:
Second, tests replicated from Bruen
Page 28 and 29:
clusters is reported to be preferre
Page 30 and 31:
occur (cf. figure 1). Similar perfo
Page 32 and 33:
argument that raises to pre-verbal
Page 34 and 35:
Timothy Bazalgette University of
Page 36 and 37:
. I hurt not this knee now (Emma 2;
Page 38 and 39:
Rajesh Bhatt & Stefan Keine(Univers
Page 40 and 41:
SIZE MATTERS: ON DIACHRONIC STABILI
Page 42 and 43:
ON THE ‘MAFIOSO EFFECT’ IN GRAM
Page 44 and 45:
The absence of coreferential subjec
Page 46 and 47:
PROSPECTS FOR A COMPARATIVE BIOLING
Page 48 and 49:
A multi-step algorithm for serial o
Page 50 and 51:
Velar/coronal asymmetry in phonemic
Page 52 and 53:
On the bilingual acquisition of Ita
Page 54 and 55:
Hierarchy and Recursion in the Brai
Page 56 and 57:
Colorful spleeny ideas speak furiou
Page 58 and 59:
A neoparametric approach to variati
Page 60 and 61:
Lexical items merged in functional
Page 62 and 63:
Setting the elements of syntactic v
Page 64 and 65:
Language Faculty, Complexity Reduct
Page 66 and 67:
Don’t scope your universal quanti
Page 68 and 69:
Restricting language change through
Page 70 and 71:
4. Conclusion This micro-comparativ
Page 72 and 73:
2. Central Algonquian feature hiera
Page 74 and 75:
availability of the SR reading in (
Page 76 and 77:
Repairing Final-Over-Final Constrai
Page 78 and 79:
a PF interface phenomenon as propos
Page 80 and 81:
(b) Once the learner has determined
Page 82 and 83:
cognitive recursion (including Merg
Page 84 and 85:
can be null, or lexically realized,
Page 86 and 87:
feature on C and applies after Agre
Page 88 and 89:
Nobu Goto (Mie University)Deletion
Page 90 and 91:
Structural Asymmetries - The View f
Page 92 and 93:
FROM INFANT POINTING TO THE PHASE:
Page 94 and 95:
Some Maladaptive Traits of Natural
Page 96 and 97:
Constraints on Concept FormationDan
Page 98 and 99:
More on strategies of relativizatio
Page 100 and 101:
ReferencesBayer, J. 1984. COMP in B
Page 102 and 103:
Improper movement and improper agre
Page 104 and 105:
Importantly, while there are plausi
Page 106 and 107:
This hypothesis makes two predictio
Page 108 and 109:
(3) a. Það finnst alltaf þremur
Page 110 and 111:
(2) Watashi-wa hudan hougaku -wa /*
Page 112 and 113:
However when the VP (or IP) is elid
Page 114 and 115:
More specifically, this work reflec
Page 116 and 117:
modality, or ii) see phonology as m
Page 118 and 119:
(I) FWHA The wh-word shenme ‘what
Page 120 and 121:
1The historical reality of biolingu
Page 122 and 123:
Rita Manzini, FirenzeVariation and
Page 124 and 125:
Non-counterfactual past subjunctive
Page 126 and 127:
THE GRAMMAR OF THE ESSENTIAL INDEXI
Page 128 and 129:
Motivating head movement: The case
Page 130 and 131:
Limits on Noun-suppletionBeata Mosk
Page 132 and 133:
Unbounded Successive-Cyclic Rightwa
Page 134 and 135:
Same, different, other, and the his
Page 136 and 137:
Selectivity in L3 transfer: effects
Page 138 and 139:
Anaphoric dependencies in real time
Page 140 and 141:
Constraining Local Dislocation dial
Page 142 and 143:
A Dual-Source Analysis of GappingDa
Page 144 and 145: [9] S. Repp. ¬ (A& B). Gapping, ne
Page 146 and 147: of Paths into P path and P place is
Page 148 and 149: Deriving the Functional HierarchyGi
Page 150 and 151: Reflexivity without reflexivesEric
Page 152 and 153: Reuland, E. (2001). Primitives of b
Page 154 and 155: on v, one associated with uϕ and t
Page 156 and 157: Merge when applied to the SM interf
Page 158 and 159: 1 SachsThe Semantics of Hindi Multi
Page 160 and 161: Covert without overt: QR for moveme
Page 162 and 163: Morpho-syntactic transfer in L3 acq
Page 164 and 165: one where goals receive a theta-rel
Page 166 and 167: 51525354555657585960616263646566676
Page 168 and 169: follow Harris in assuming a ranked
Page 170 and 171: changing instances of nodes 7 and 8
Page 172 and 173: Sam Steddy, steddy@mit.eduMore irre
Page 174 and 175: Fleshing out this model further, I
Page 176 and 177: (5) Raman i [ CP taan {i,∗j}Raman
Page 178 and 179: properties with Appl (introduces an
Page 180 and 181: econstruct to position A then we ca
Page 182 and 183: (5) Kutik=i ez guret-a.dog=OBL.M 1S
Page 184 and 185: sults summarized in (2) suggest tha
Page 186 and 187: Building on Bhatt’s (2005) analys
Page 188 and 189: Underlying (derived from ON) /pp, t
Page 190 and 191: out, as shown in (3) (that the DP i
Page 192 and 193: Word order and definiteness in the
Page 196 and 197: the key factors. The combination of
Page 198 and 199: Parasitic Gaps Licensed by Elided S
Page 200 and 201: Stages of grammaticalization of the
show all

Practical Information - Generative Linguistics in the Old World

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?