Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorvan Urk, Coppe
dc.date.accessioned2012-11-27T12:19:35Z
dc.date.available2012-11-27T12:19:35Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.identifier.issn0894-4539
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/253430
dc.description.abstractThis 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.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherUniversity of Arizona Linguistics Circle (Tucson, Arizona)en_US
dc.relation.urlhttps://coyotepapers.sbs.arizona.edu/en_US
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author(s).en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/en_US
dc.titleOn the Syntactic Reification of Implicit Subjectsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technologyen_US
dc.identifier.journalCoyote Papersen_US
dc.description.collectioninformationThe 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.journaltitleCoyote Papers
refterms.dateFOA2018-04-26T22:27:16Z
html.description.abstractThis 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.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
van Urk, Coppe On the Syntactic ...
Size:
196.2Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record