On the Syntactic Reification of Implicit Subjects
dc.contributor.author | van Urk, Coppe | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2012-11-27T12:19:35Z | |
dc.date.available | 2012-11-27T12:19:35Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2012 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 0894-4539 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10150/253430 | |
dc.description.abstract | This paper presents an empirical argument for the claim that implicit subjects of passives are syntactically projected. It is shown that obligatory control by implicit subjects in the passive is subject to a syntactic restriction. Specifically, across languages, promotion of a DP to spec-TP blocks control by the implicit subject of a passive. This is what lies behind the old observation that subject control is incompatible with passivization in English, or Visser's Generalization (VG) (e.g. Jenkins 1972; Bresnan 1982). This generalization is a natural consequence of the logic of an agreement-based theory of control (Borer 1989; Landau 2000 et seq.), if it is assumed that control by implicit subjects is established syntactically. | |
dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
dc.publisher | University of Arizona Linguistics Circle (Tucson, Arizona) | en_US |
dc.relation.url | https://coyotepapers.sbs.arizona.edu/ | en_US |
dc.rights | Copyright © is held by the author(s). | en_US |
dc.rights.uri | http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ | en_US |
dc.title | On the Syntactic Reification of Implicit Subjects | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.type | text | en_US |
dc.contributor.department | Massachusetts Institute of Technology | en_US |
dc.identifier.journal | Coyote Papers | en_US |
dc.description.collectioninformation | The Coyote Papers are made available by the Arizona Linguistics Circle at the University of Arizona and the University of Arizona Libraries. Contact coyotepapers@email.arizona.edu with questions about these materials. | en_US |
dc.source.journaltitle | Coyote Papers | |
refterms.dateFOA | 2018-04-26T22:27:16Z | |
html.description.abstract | This paper presents an empirical argument for the claim that implicit subjects of passives are syntactically projected. It is shown that obligatory control by implicit subjects in the passive is subject to a syntactic restriction. Specifically, across languages, promotion of a DP to spec-TP blocks control by the implicit subject of a passive. This is what lies behind the old observation that subject control is incompatible with passivization in English, or Visser's Generalization (VG) (e.g. Jenkins 1972; Bresnan 1982). This generalization is a natural consequence of the logic of an agreement-based theory of control (Borer 1989; Landau 2000 et seq.), if it is assumed that control by implicit subjects is established syntactically. |