Form Copy and Markovian Gaps in Latin Syntax: The Control Case
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/LinCop.2023.007Abstrakt
Najnowsze propozycje teoretyczne w ramach minimalizmu redukują wymagania zasobów obliczeniowych w procesie derywacji przez postulowanie ich markowskiego charakteru. W wyniku takiego posunięcia otwierają się nowe możliwości analizy zjawiska kontroli w językach naturalnych. Na podstawie zjawiska kontroli w języku łacińskim jako materiale empirycznym artykuł porównuje trzy minimalistyczne analizy takich struktur w celu oceny ich adekwatności empirycznej i zobowiązań teoretycznych. Porównanie prowadzi do wniosku, że choć wszystkie rozwiązania wykazują ten sam poziom adekwatności empirycznej, hipoteza markowskiego charakteru derywacji jest z teoretycznego punktu widzenia najtrafniejsza.
Bibliografia
Anagnostopoulou E., Sevdali Ch., 2015, Case alternations in Ancient Greek passives and the typology of Case, Language 91 (2), 442–481.
Anagnostopoulou E., Sevdali Ch., 2020, Two modes of dative and genitive case assignment: Evidence from two stages of Greek, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 38, 987–1051.
Atlamaz Ü., 2019, Agreement, Case, and Nominal Licensing, PhD thesis, Rutgers University.
Atlamaz Ü., Baker M., 2018, On Partial Agreement and Oblique Case, Syntax 21, 195–237.
Baker M., 1997, Thematic Roles and Syntactic Structure, in: L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 73–137.
Baker M., 2015, Case: Its principles and its parameters, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bobaljik J., 2008, Where’s phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation, in: D. Harbour,
D. Adger, S. Béjar (eds.), Phi theory: Phi features across interfaces and modules, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 295–328.
Boeckx C., Hornstein N., Nunes J., 2010a, Control as Movement, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boeckx C., Hornstein N., Nunes J., 2010b, Icelandic Control Really Is A-Movement: Reply to Bobaljik and Landau, Linguistic Inquiry 41.1, 111–140.
Bošković Ž., 1994, D-Structure, Theta Criterion, and movement into theta positions, Linguistic Analysis 24, 247–286.
Bowers J., 2002, Transitivity, Linguistic Inquiry 33.2, 183–234.
Calboli G., 1996, The Accusative as a Default Case in Latin, in: H. Rosén (ed.), Aspects of Latin, Papers from the Seventh International Colloquium on Latin Linguistics,
Jerusalem 19–23 April, 1993, Innsbruck: Institut f u¨ r Sprachwissenschaft der Universita¨t Innsbruck, 423–436.
Calboli G., 2005, The accusative as a ‘default’ case in Latin subordinate clauses, Indogermanische Forschungen 110, 235–266.
Cecchetto C., Donati C., 2022, Labeling (Reduced) Structures: When VPs Are Sentences [To appear in Linguistic Inquiry].
Cecchetto C., Oniga R., 2002, Consequences of the Analysis of Latin Infinitival
Clauses for the Theory of Case and Control, Lingue e Linguaggio 1, 151–189.
Cecchetto C., Oniga R., 2004, A Challenge to Null Case Theory, Linguistic Inquiry 35.1, 141–149.
Cennamo M., 2009, Argument structure and alignment variations and changes in Late Latin, in: J .Barddal, S. L. Chelliah (eds.), The Role of Semantic, Pragmatic, and Discourse Factors in the Development of Case, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 307–346.
Chomsky N., 1980, On binding, Linguistic Inquiry 11.1, 1–46.
Chomsky N., 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding, Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Chomsky N., 1995, The Minimalist Program, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Chomsky N., 2000, Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework, in: R. Martin, D. Michaels J. Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 89–156.
Chomsky N., 2004, The Generative Enterprise Revisited. Discussions with Riny Huybregts, Henk van Riemsdijk, Naoki Fukui and Mihoko Zushi, Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chomsky N., 2005, Three Factors in Language Design, Linguistic Inquiry 36.1, 1–22.
Chomsky N., 2007, Approaching UG from Below, in: U. Sauerland, H.-M. Gärtner (eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language?, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1–29.
Chomsky N., 2008, On Phases, in: R. Freidin, C. Otero, M. L. Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor of Jean–Roger Vergnaud, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 133–167.
Chomsky N., 2012, Foreword, in: Á. Gallego (ed.), Phases: Developing the Framework, Berlin–New York: De Gruyter, 1–8.
Chomsky N., 2013a, Poverty of the Stimulus: Willingness to be Puzzled, in: M. Piattelli-Palmarini, R. Berwick (eds.), Rich Languages from Poor Inputs, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 61–67.
Chomsky N., 2013b, Problems of Projection, Lingua 130, 33–49.
Chomsky N., 2015, Problems of projection: Extensions, in: E. Di Domenico, C. Hamann, S. Matteini (eds.), Structures, Strategies and Beyond. Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–16.
Chomsky N., 2019a, Some Puzzling Foundational Issues: The Reading Program, Catalan Journal of Linguistics Special Issue, 263–285.
Chomsky N., 2019b, The UCLA Lectures. Transcribed with an introduction by Robert Freidin; https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005485.
Chomsky N., 2020, Minimalism: where we are now, and where we are going. Lecture given at the 161st meeting of Linguistic Society of Japan.
Chomsky N., 2021a, Genuine Explanations, Plenary talk at WCCFL 39.
Chomsky N., 2021b, Minimalism: Where Are We Now, and Where Can We Hope to Go, Gengo Kenkyu 160, 1–41.
Chomsky N., 2021c, Reflections, in: N. Allott, T. Lohndal, G. Rey (eds.), A Companion to Chomsky, Hoboken: Wiley, 583–593.
Chomsky N, Lasnik H., 1977, Filters and control, Linguistic Inquiry 8.3, 425–504.
Chomsky N, Lasnik H., 1993, Principles and parameters theory, in: A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld, T. Vennemann (eds.), Syntax: an International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 506–569 [Reprinted in Chomsky (1995: 13–127)].
Chomsky N., Ott D., Gallego Á, 2019, Generative Grammar and the Faculty of Language: Insights, Questions, and Challenges, Catalan Journal of Linguistics Special Issue, 229–261.
Danckaert L., 2016, Changing patterns of clausal complementation in Latin: a parametric approach to ‘constructional’ changes, Ms., University of Ghent.
Danckaert L., 2017, The Development of Latin Clause Structure: A Study of the Extended Verb Phrase, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dikken M. Den, 1995, Particles, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Emonds J. E., 1985, A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories, Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Epstein S. D., Kitahara H., Seely T. D., 2015, From Aspects’ ‘Daughterless Mothers’ (aka Delta Nodes) to POP’s ‘Motherless Sets’ (aka Non-Projection): a Selective History of the Evolution of Simplest Merge, in: Á. Gallego, D. Ott (eds.), 50 Years Later: Reflections on Chomsky’s Aspects. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MITWPL, 99–112, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics No 77.
Epstein S. D., Kitahara H., Seely T. D., 2021, A Minimalist Theory of Simplest Merge, New York: Routledge.
Epstein S. D., Obata M, Seely T. D., 2017, Is Linguistic Variation Entirely Linguistic?”, Linguistic Analysis 41.3–4, 481–516.
Ernout A., Thomas F., 1964, Syntaxe latine, Paris: Klincksieck.
Gallego Á., 2011, Control through Multiple Agree, Revue roumaine de linguistique 56, 313–346.
Grano T., 2015, Control and Restructuring, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hanink E. A., 2021, DP structure and internally headed relatives in Washo, Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 39, 505–554.
Harizanov B., 2018, Word Formation at the Syntax-Morphology Interface: Denominal
Adjectives in Bulgarian, Linguistic Inquiry 48.2, 283–333.
Hiraiwa K., 2001, Multiple Agree and the Defective Intervention Constraint in Japanese, in: Proceedings of the HUMIT 2000.
Matushansky O. et al. (eds.), Cambridge, Massachusetts: MITWPL, 67–80.
Matushansky O., 2005, Dimensions of Symmetry in Syntax: Agreement and Clausal Architecture, PhD thesis. MIT.
Hofmann J. B., Szantyr A., 1972, Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik, München: Verlag C.H. Beck.
Hornstein N., 1999, Movement and Control, Linguistic Inquiry 30.1, 69–96.
Hornstein N., 2001, Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal, Oxford: Blackwell.
Hornstein N., Polinsky M. (eds.), 2010, Movement Theory of Control, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jøhndal M., 2012, Non-finiteness in Latin, PhD thesis. University of Cambridge.
Kayne R. S., 1984, Connectedness and binary branching, Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Ke A. H., 2022, Can Agree and Labeling Be Reduced to Minimal Search? [To appear in Linguistic Inquiry].
Kitahara H., 2021, On the Notion Copy under MERGE, Reports of the Keio Institute of Cultural and Linguistic Studies 52, 133–140.
Kramer R., 2010, The Amharic Definite Marker and the Syntax–Morphology Interface, Syntax 13.3, 196–240.
Kühner R., Stegmann C., 1955, Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache, vol. 1. Leverkusen: Gottschalksche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Landau I., 2004, The Scale of Finiteness and the Calculus of Control, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22.4, 811–877.
Landau I., 2006, Severing the Distribution of PRO from Case, Syntax 9.2, 153–170.
Landau I., 2008, Two routes of control: evidence from Case transmission in Russian, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26.4, 877–924.
Landau I., 2010, The Locative Syntax of Experiencers, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Landau I., 2013, Control in Generative Grammar: A Research Companion, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Landau I., 2015, A Two-Tiered Theory of Control, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Landau I., 2021, A Selectional Theory of Adjunct Control, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Lasnik H., 2019, Exceptional Case–marking: Perspectives Old and New, Paper presented at 25th Annual Graduate Linguistics, Applied Linguistics and TESOL Symposium.
Lewis D. K., 1991, Parts of Classes, Oxford: Blackwell.
Marantz A., 1992, Case and licensing, in: G. F. Westphal, B. Ao, H.-R. Chae (eds.), ESCOL ’91: Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, Baltimore: University of Maryland, 234–253.
Martin R., 1996, A minimalist theory of PRO and control, PhD thesis. University of Connecticut.
Martin R., 2001, Null case and the distribution of PRO”. Linguistic Inquiry 32.1, 141–166.
Martin R., Uriagereka J., 2013, Equi redux, in: Y. Miyamoto et al. (eds.), Deep Insights, Broad Perspectives: Essays in Honor of Mamoru Saito, Tokyo: Kaitakusha, 292–308.
Martin R., Uriagereka J., 2014, Chains in Minimalism, in: P. Kosta et al. (eds.), Minimalism and Beyond: Radicalizing the interfaces, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 169–194.
Melazzo L., 2005, Latin object and subject infinitive clauses, in: K. E. Kiss (ed.), Universal
Grammar in the Reconstruction of Ancient Languages, Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter, 339–372.
Menge H., 2012, Lehrbuch der lateinischen Syntax und Semantik, Bearb. T. Burkard und M. Schauer, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Norris M., 2014, A theory of nominal concord, PhD thesis University of California Santa Cruz.
Nunes J., 2001, Sideward movement, Linguistic Inquiry 31, 303–344.
Nunes J., 2004, Linearization of chains and sideward movement, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Obata M., Epstein S. D., 2016, Eliminating parameters from the narrow syntax. Rule ordering variation by third-factor underspecification, in: K. Fujita, C. Boeckx (eds.), Advances in Biolinguistics. The human language faculty and its biological basis, New York–London: Routledge, 128–138.
Oniga R., 2014, Latin: A Linguistic Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pesetsky D., 1995, Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Pillinger O. S., 1980, The Accusative and Infinitive in Latin: A Refractory Complement Clause, Journal of Linguistics 16.1, 55–83.
Pinkster H., 1990, Latin Syntax and Semantics, London: Routledge.
Pinkster H., 2015, The Oxford Latin Syntax. Volume I: The Simple Clause, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pinkster H., 2021, The Oxford Latin Syntax. Volume II: The Complex Sentence and Discourse, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Polinsky M., 2013, Raising and control, in: M. den Dikken (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 577–606.
Puškar Z., Müller G., 2018, Unifying structural and lexical case assignment in Dependent Case Theory, in: D. Lenertová et al. (eds.), Advances in formal Slavic linguistics 2016, Berlin: Language Science Press, 357–379.
Reed L. A., 2014, Strengthening the PRO Hypothesis, Berlin: De Gruyter.
Richards M., 2012, On feature inheritance, defective phases, and the movement-morphology connection, in: Á. Gallego (ed.), Phases: Developing the Framework. Berlin–New York: Walter De Gruyter, 195–232.
Roberts I., 2019, Parameter Hierarchies and Universal Grammar, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Saito M., 2022, Two Notes on Copy Formation, Nanzan Linguistics 17, 157–178.
Sheehan M., 2018, On the difference between exhaustive and partial control, in: F. Cognola, J. Casalicchio (eds.), Null Subjects in Generative Grammar, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 141–170.
Smith J. Ch., 2011, Change and continuity in form–function relationships, in: M. Maiden, J. Ch. Smith, A. Ledgeway (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, Volume I Structures, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 268–316.
Uriagereka J., 1997, Formal and Substantive Elegance in the Minimalist Program, in: Ch. Wilder, H.-M. Gärtner, M. Bierwisch (eds.), The role of economy principles in linguistic theory, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 170–204.
Ussery Ch., 2008, What It Means to Agree: The Behavior of Case and Phi Features in Icelandic Control, in: Ch. B. Chang, H. J. Haynie (eds.). Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Somerville, Massachusetts: Cascadilla Press, 480–488.
Wurmbrand S. 1999, Modal Verbs Must Be Raising Verbs, in: S. Bird et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Somerville, Massachusetts: Cascadilla Press, 599–612.
Pobrania
Opublikowane
Jak cytować
Numer
Dział
Licencja
Prawa autorskie (c) 2024 Jarosław Jakielaszek
Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa – Bez utworów zależnych 4.0 Międzynarodowe.
Statystyki
Liczba wyświetleń i pobrań: 220
Liczba cytowań: 0
