On Intervention Effects in TOUGH Constructions in English
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper investigates intervention effects in T(OUGH)- constructions in English. Hartman (2011) reports that the intervening attitude holder or judge PP prohibits the association of the matrix subject DP with the gap in the embedded infinitive clause of T-constructions. Hartman (ibid.) argues that intervention effects in these constructions make a strong case for the long-movement analysis for the matrix subject DP. In this paper we explore the different line of analysis, proposing à la Chomsky (1981) that the matrix TOUGH adjective is an individual-level (IL) predicate and converts the ensuing embedded infinitive form of verb into the same type of IL predicate. Consequently the two adjective and verb are combined into one complex IL adjective, mediated by raising of the functional category ⓘ-Pred that makes the embedded infinitive verb enter into IL predication. However, when the embedded infinitive clause is extraposed after the attitude holder or typical adjunct PP, ⓘ-Pred raising is disallowed, thereby failing proper predication in the matrix clause; this in turn accounts for intervention effects in T-constructions.
Abstract
This paper investigates intervention effects in T(OUGH)- constructions in English. Hartman (2011) reports that the intervening attitude holder or judge PP prohibits the association of the matrix subject DP with the gap in the embedded infinitive clause of T-constructions. Hartman (ibid.) argues that intervention effects in these constructions make a strong case for the long-movement analysis for the matrix subject DP. In this paper we explore the different line of analysis, proposing à la Chomsky (1981) that the matrix TOUGH adjective is an individual-level (IL) predicate and converts the ensuing embedded infinitive form of verb into the same type of IL predicate. Consequently the two adjective and verb are combined into one complex IL adjective, mediated by raising of the functional category ⓘ-Pred that makes the embedded infinitive verb enter into IL predication. However, when the embedded infinitive clause is extraposed after the attitude holder or typical adjunct PP, ⓘ-Pred raising is disallowed, thereby failing proper predication in the matrix clause; this in turn accounts for intervention effects in T-constructions.
참고문헌 (35)
- Akmajian, Adrian, "Getting ‘tough’", Linguistic Inquiry, 3, pp.373~377 (1972)
- Brody, Michael, "θ-theory and arguments", Linguistic Inquiry, 24, pp.1~23 (1993)
- Bruening, Benjamin, "Defects of defective intervention", Linguistic Inquiry, 45, pp.707~719 (2014)
- Campbell, Richard, "The temporal syntax of small clauses", Ms, pp.1992
- Chomsky, Noam, "Formal syntax", pp.71~132 (1977), Academic Press
- Chomsky, Noam, "Lectures on government and binding" (1981), Foris
- Fleisher, Nicholas, "On the absence of scope reconstruction in ‘tough’-subject A-chains", Linguistic Inquiry, 44, pp.321~332 (2013)
- Fleisher, Nicholas, "Rare-class adjectives in the ‘tough’-construction", Language, 91, pp.73~108 (2015)
- Gluckman, John, "Taking time with ‘tough’-movement", Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America 2016 Annual Meeting (2016)
- Goto, Sayaka, "On the ‘tough’ construction: event suppression and null operator predication", English American Literature, 54, pp.62~82 (2010)
- Hartman, Jeremy, "Proceedings of the 39th Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 39)", pp.387~397 (2011), GLSA
- Hartman, Jeremy, "(Non-)Intervention in A-movement : Some cross-constructional and cross-linguistic consequences", Linguistic Variation, 11, pp.121~148 (2012)
- Hartman, Jeremy, "Varieties of clausal complementation", pp.2012
- Hicks, Glyn, "‘Tough’-constructions and their derivation", Linguistic Inquiry, 40, pp.535~566 (2009)
- Hornstein, Norbert, "Move! A minimalist theory of construal" (2001), Blackwell
- Huang, James, "Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar", pp.1982
- Keine, Stefan, "Intervention in ‘tough’-constructions revisited", The Linguistic Review, 34, pp.295~329 (2017)
- Kim, Boomee, "Predication in ‘tough’ constructions", Proceedings of the Fourteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 14), pp.271~285 (1995)
- Jones, Michael A., "Getting ‘tough’ with WH-movement", Journal of Linguistics, 19, pp.129~159 (1983)
- Lasnik, Howard, "Complement object deletion", Linguistic Inquiry, 5, pp.535~571 (1974)
- Longenbaugh, Nicholas, "Dicult movement", Paper presented at the 46th Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 46) (2015)
- Miyamoto, Yoichi, "Secondary predicates and tense", pp.1994
- Pollard, Carl, "Head-driven phrase structure grammar" (1993), The University of Chicago Press
- Poole, Ethan, "More on (the lack of) reconstruction in English ‘tough’-constructions", Linguistic Inquiry (2022)[DOI]
- Postal, Paul, "Cross-over phenomena" (1971), Holt, Rinehart and Winston
- Postal, Paul, "Tough movement si, tough deletion no!", Linguistic Inquiry, 2, pp.544~546 (1971)
- Raposo, Eduardo, "Small Clauses, Syntax and Semantics volume 28", pp.179~206 (1995), Academic Press
- Rezac, Milan, "Minimalist essays", pp.288~325 (2006), John Benjamins
- Rosenbaum, Peter S., "The grammar of English predicate complement constructions" (1967), MIT Press
- Ross, John R, "Constraints on variables in syntax", pp.1967
- Schwarzer, Marie-Luise, "Structure removal, volume 94 of Linguistische Arbeits Berichte (LAB)", pp.167~214 (2019), Universitat Leipzig
- Stowell, Timothy, "Principles and parameters in comparative grammar", pp.182~218 (1991), MIT Press
- Svenonius, Peter, "‘Want’-type and ‘consider’-type verbs", Ms, pp.1993
- Williams, Edwin, "Semantic vs. syntactic categories", Linguistics and Philosophy, 6, pp.423~446 (1983)
- Wurmbrand, Susi, "Infinitives" (1998), MIT Press