CLS Meeting Series - Lisa Reed (Penn State University)
Apr 10, 2015
from 09:00 AM to 10:30 AM
|Where||127 Moore Building|
|Add event to calendar||
On control and passivization
Landau (2013) and van Urk (2013) have suggested, albeit in different theoretical terms, that personal (1) and impersonal (2) passives shed new light on the syntactic status of implicit arguments and on control theory generally. They argue that these constructions not only prove that the implicit thematic subject of a passive sentence must be syntactically projected, but also that antecedent resolution in control structures is resolved entirely within the computational system, not say, via the application of a Bare Output Condition (BOC) at the syntax-semantics interface, as suggested in various terms in earlier generative literature and more recently in Reed (2014).
(1) The game was played [PRO wearing no shoes]. Parallel to data in Roeper (1983)
(2) It was proposed/agreed/decided [PRO to establish a new nation on new principles]. Parallel to data in Manzini (1983: 427)
In this presentation, I will critically re-examine the evidence that these researchers have put forth in favor of the two claims given above and I will introduce separate data that collectively show that the weak implicit argument (WIA) of passives is not syntactically projected and that the BOC approach to control is the one best equipped to accommodate the fullest range of data at this point in time.
Landau, Idan. 2013. Control in generative grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Manzini, Maria Rita. 1983. On control and control theory. Linguistic Inquiry 14.3: 421-446.
Reed, Lisa. 2014. Strengthening the PRO Hypothesis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Roeper, Thomas. 1983. Implicit arguments. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass.
van Urk, Coppe. 2013. Visser’s Generalization: The syntax of control and passive. Linguistic Inquiry 44.1: 168-178.