Minor’s puzzle revisited: On raising effects in Russian control verbsтезисы доклада

Дата последнего поиска статьи во внешних источниках: 29 мая 2019 г.

Работа с тезисами доклада

Прикрепленные файлы

Имя Описание Имя файла Размер Добавлен
1. Полный текст lyutikova_tatevosov_FDSL.pdf 86,3 КБ 12 декабря 2018 [lyutikova]

[1] Lyutikova E., Tatevosov S. Minor’s puzzle revisited: On raising effects in russian control verbs // 13th European Conference on Formal Description of Slavic Languages. Book of abstracts. — University of Göttingen, 2018. — P. 73–74. It has been widely assumed since Rosenbaum 1965 that infinitival complement constructions fall into two classes involving raising and control. A number of diagnostics suggest that Russian infinitival complement constructions with directive predicates involve object control (Kozinskij 1985; Lasnik 1998; Stepanov 2007). However, Minor (2011, 2013) observes that object control constructions with speech act matrix verbs (velet’ ‘order’, posovetovat’ ‘advise’, etc.) allow for their dative object to be interpreted within the infinitival clause, (1), thus pointing towards a raising-to-object/ECM analysis. Minor’s data include quantificational objects, nibud’-pronouns and ni-pronouns. Minor suggests a “mixed” structure where the object originates and stays in the embedded clause but receives case and thematic role from the matrix verb. Crucially, this analysis fails to restrict “mixed” constructions to speech act object control verbs. Yet, subject control verbs and the rest of object control verbs reject arguments which need embedded scope to be licensed, (2a-b). New data and generalizations. Our contribution to the topic is twofold. First, we present new data on Russian object control constructions suggesting that ni-licensing and narrow scope phenomena have to be teased apart. Secondly, we propose analyses for both of them. 􀁣 Ni-pronouns are licensed in a wider range of control configurations than nibud’-pronouns, including causative verbs, (3a), and subject control verbs, (3b). 􀁤 Among ni-pronouns, only nikto ‘nobody’ and ni odin ‘no one’ are available; negative DPs headed by nikakoj ‘no, none’ are ungrammatical in control configurations, (4). 􀁥 Configurations where nibud’-pronouns are licit license other narrow scope phenomena, e.g., quantificational DPs or disjunction, (5a-b). They are restricted to speech act object control verbs with non-implicative infinitival complements, (6a-b). Analysis. We argue that ni-pronouns licensed in control configurations are negative floating quantifiers construed with PRO, which is controlled by an (implicit) argument in the matrix clause. The structure of (4) is therefore (7). (7) is supported by the following five facts. 􀁮 Only those ni-pronouns that can float are allowed in control configurations. 􀁯 Case options available for ni-pronouns are the same as those reported in Babby 1998 for garden-variety FQs. 􀁰 An infinitival clause with a ni-pronoun behaves like a constituent (e.g. wrt coordination). 􀁱 Floating ni-pronouns are licit with rasporjadit’sja ‘order’ that never realizes the addressee in the matrix clause. 􀁲 Constructions with an explicit controller DP AND a ni-pronoun are readily available. Configurations licensing embedded scope phenomena involve speech act control verbs exclusively. The crucial observation we want to make sense of is that the same scope relations can be found in imperative constructions with indefinite vocatives, (8). Surfacing outside of the imperative clause (which is signaled by the prosodic boundary, as well as by imperative particle position), indefinite vocatives are nevertheless in the scope of the imperative; moreover, they are only licensed in imperative (and exhortative) utterances. We propose that imperative and directive constructions share a substantial part of syntactic structure. In line with Speas & Tenny 2003, Hill 2007, 2014, Haegeman & Hill 2013, a.m.o., we assume that speech act coordinates, which comprise Author and Addressee, are syntactically represented within a dedicated saP/SAP layer. Building on Zanuttini 2008, Zanuttini, Pak & Portner 2012 and Alcazar & Saltarelli 2014, we propose that imperatives are extended verbal projections embedded under JUSSIVE head that introduces modality associated with imperatives, promissives etc. Imperative subjects are base-generated in Spec, vP as Performers; their optional raising to the Addressee position creates vocatives with embedded scope, (9a). Speech act verbs embed the structure in (9a) as a complement; the difference between imperative and directive constructions is that the former license (nominative) case on the subject whereas the latter do not. Consequently, the overt infinitival clause subject can only be case-licensed by matrix functional heads v or Appl via ECM (cf. Shehaan 2014); in this case, the matrix nominal argument has to be implicit, (9b). Alternatively, Performer can be realized as a logophorically controlled PRO (cf. Landau 2015); in this configuration, matrix argument position can host an overt DP (9c). Crucially, (9b) produces embedded scope configurations, since the DP construed as the Addressee of the indirect speech act is generated under JUSSIVE head and in this way can be licensed.

Публикация в формате сохранить в файл сохранить в файл сохранить в файл сохранить в файл сохранить в файл сохранить в файл скрыть