Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
LFG Winter School 2004 Control & Complementation revisited Nigel Vincent University of Manchester Issues • • • • • • the semantic vs syntactic basis of control the unity of control and raising diachrony partial vs exhaustive control tense in control complements backwards control Syntax vs semantics: two fallacies i) a semantic account = a lexical account ii) Structuralism vs eclecticism: if part of the answer is syntactic, it is better if all of the answer is syntactic semantic ≠ lexical [Culicover & Jackendoff provide] ‘a list of controllers coded by thematic role: some verbs are agent control verbs, others patient control … and so on. This reduces the theory of control to a lexical catalogue.’ [Hornstein & Boeckx 2003: 270] eclecticism The theory of control involves a number of different factors: structural configurations, intrinsic properties of verbs, other semantic and pragmatic considerations. [Chomsky 1981: 78-79] Structuralism vs eclecticism: a false dichotomy “All agree that grammatical structure is part of any adequate approach to control. What distinguishes structuralists from eclectics is whether this information exhausts what is needed. All things being equal then, structuralism is preferable if attainable.” Hornstein (2003: 26) Semantics and control: two real issues Does a controlled complement correspond to a property or a proposition? How does the property/proposition contrast relate to the distinction between COMP and XCOMP? Proposition vs Property Dalrymple Higginbotham Hornstein Landau Pollard & Sag Rosenbaum Zec Asudeh Chierchia Culicover & Jackendoff Dowty Jacobson Montague Theory independence Property Proposition LFG Asudeh Dalrymple Minimalism Hornstein Landau The Chierchia argument a) b) c) d) Nando tries whatever Ezio tries Ezio tries to jog at sunrise ERGO: Nando tries to jog at sunrise Entailment fails if complement of (b) is understood as the proposition Ezio jogs at sunrise rather than the property jog at sunrise Dalrymple on Chierchia Sloppy vs strict identity ambiguities are not always susceptible to this solution Nando does whatever Ezio does E broke his (=E’s) arm playing football N broke his (=N’s) arm playing football Arguments against property-based analysis Reflexive/reciprocal binding (cf above) Wide scope/de re vs narrow scope/de dicto Raising: both wide (de re) and narrow (de dicto) possible A goblin seemed to pinch Gonzo = i) (x seemed to be a goblin) & (x pinched Gonzo) = ii) (x is a goblin) & (x seemed to pinch Gonzo) Equi: only wide scope (de re) A goblin tried to pinch Gonzo ≠ i) (x tried to be a goblin) & (x pinched Gonzo) = ii) (x is a goblin) & (x tried to pinch Gonzo) Asudeh’s account seem and try both take XCOMP at f-structure Glue language distinguishes between the way the semantic resources are consumed: try : (try, leave) John seem: (leave, John) seem NB ‘Structure sharing is not necessarily at odds with resource-sensitivity.’ [Asudeh 2002: 18] Scope & Asudeh’s account Equi semantics only gives wide scope Raising semantics allows both scopes The paradox of seem Semantically seem must take a proposition Syntactically all agree seem takes XCOMP Yet XCOMP intuitively maps to a property Proposition/property & COMP/XCOMP COMP XCOMP Property look like try Proposition say seem Serbo-Croat (Zec 1987) Petar je pokusao Peter be.3SG try.PSTPRT da dodje COMP come.3SG.PRES ‘Peter tried to come’ Two arguments for the unity of equi & raising verbs Diachrony Cross-linguistic differences Diachrony (Barron 2001) Equi verbs become raising verbs by a gradual process (grammaticalization) i) English promise, threaten ii) ‘want’ in many langs > Future marker Icelandic case preservation & raising a) Drengina vantar mat boys.def.acc lack.3sgpres food.acc ‘The boys lack food’ b) Drengina vir∂ist boys.def.acc seem.3sgpres vanta mat lack.inf food.acc ‘The boys seem to lack food’ Icelandic equi c) Eg vonasttil I.nom hope efni í material in a∂ to vanta ekki lack not ritger∂ina thesis.def ‘I hope not to lack material for my thesis’ Control in Tagalog (Kroeger 1993) Confirms validity of semantic approach to control à la Sag & Pollard (1991) Same verb can trigger both f-control and acontrol f-control constructions defined over syntactic relations a-control constructions defined over semantic relations Partial vs exhaustive control l l l l l a) the The chair managed [PRO to gather committee at 6] PRO = the chair The chair preferred [PRO to gather b) at 6] PRO = the chair + the committee ‘… one can already see how damaging the very existence of partial control is to the thesis “control is raising”. Simply put: there is no partial raising.’ [Landau 2003: 493, emphasis his] Landau’s map of control Obligatory Control Non-oblig Control Restricted to complement In subject & adjunct (VP-internal) infinitives (VP-external) infinitives Exhaustive Partial Long Arbitrary distance Tenseless Tensed PRO is a PRO is logophor generic Tense and control ‘an infinitival complement belongs to the PC class iff it is tensed’ [Landau 2000: 6] PC vs EC verbs [– tense]; exhaustive aspectual (begin, continue, …) modal (need, be able, …) implicative (dare, manage, …) [+ tense]; partial desiderative (want, prefer, …) factive (hate, regret, …) propositional (claim, believe, …) interrogative (wonder, ask, …) PC and LFG Partial control is a sub-case of anaphoric control Separate TENSE features in main and embedded clause An account (still to be developed) of the interaction of the two TENSE features Bill said Sally would arrive late PRED SUBJ TENSE COMP ' say < (SUBJ) (COMP) >' 'Bill' present PRED ' arrive < (SUBJ) >' ' Sally' SUBJ TENSE future ' late' ADJ Bill persuaded Sally on Tuesday to leave on Thursday PRED SUBJ OBJ TENSE ADJ COMP ' persuade < (SUBJ) (OBJ) (COMP) 'Bill' ' Sally' past ' on Tuesday' PRED ' leave < (SUBJ) >' ' pro' SUBJ TENSE future ' on Thursday' ADJ Culicover & Jackendoff free control (= non-obligatory control) • arbitrary control • long distance control nearly free control (= discourse control) unique control (= obligatory control) Backward control (BC) ‘BC is a biclausal control configuration in which the lower coindexed subject is expressed and the thematic subject in the higher clause is unpronounced.’ [Polinsky & Potsdam 2002: 261] Languages showing BC Tsez, Bezhta, Tsaxur (Nakh-Daghestanian) Malagasy (Austronesian) Japanese Jacaltec (Mayan) (and perhaps a few others) Properties of BC languages Languages with BC tend to have some/all the following properties: verb at clause edge (VOS or SOV) BC occurs with aspectual verbs such verbs show control/raising ambiguity the effect is lexically specific CONTROL [kid-ba girl.II-ERG RAISING kid girl.II-ABS ziya b-isr-a] y-oq-si cow.III.ABS III-feed-INF II-beginPAST.EVID [ziya b-isr-a] y-oq-si cow.III.ABS III-feed-INF II-beginPAST.EVID ‘The girl began to feed the cow’ Evidence for BC Clitic buy/yuy is restricted to 2nd position in the main clause Raising structure: girl.ABS yuy [cow feed] begin Control structure: [girl.ERG cow feed] yuy begin Theoretical implications of BC ‘… if our description of Tsez is on the right track, then it argues for a syntactic theory that permits BC. We suggest that a minimalist architecture in which movement may take place overtly or covertly in conjunction with a movement analysis of control … successfully accounts for BC.’ [Polinsky & Potsdam 2002: 277] BC: movement vs nonmovement Structure sharing (cf reconstruction) f-command vs c-command The two verbs ‘begin’ in Tsez begin 1 (raising): < (XCOMP)> (SUBJ) begin 2 (equi): ?? begin 2 Two possibilities: < (SUBJ) (XCOMP)> : < (SUBJ) (COMP)>: but (SUBJ) is in the wrong place but violates fcommand [girl SUBJ cow feed] OBJ XCOMP begin <SUBJ, XCOMP> VP (XCOMP) = S NP (SUBJ) = S S V = = Quantifiers in Tsez BC (Cormack & Smith 2004) *[Each boy.ERG book read] begin Each boy.ABS [book read] begin i.e. BC is incompatible with wide scope readings A further problem: control in Balinese English *To take the medicine was tried by me Excluded because Adjunct cannot be a controller (Bresnan 1982) What is the function of to take the medicine? A further problem: control in Balinese Balinese [Ø-naar ubad ento]SUBJ tegarang AV.eat medicine that OV.try tiang 1PSG Arka & Simpson (1998) assume a level of syntactic a-structure where tiang is a term. This circumvents the problem of how to get control into SUBJ. Conclusions Desirability of maintaining a unified account of obligatory control and raising The LFG account extends naturally to cover new sorts of data, e.g backwards control The LFG account offers insights not otherwise easily captured, e.g. property based view BUT partial control effects suggest redrawing the boundary between f-control & a-control