Raising, unphased

Article
  • 54 Downloads

Abstract

This paper investigates cross-linguistic variation in raising-to-subject constructions, proposing a unified account for the derivation of hyper-raising and standard raising. I argue that the presence or absence of these constructions in a given language can be determined without recourse to phases by independent properties of CP and TP in the language, including: (1) whether CPs or infinitival phrases are phi-goals in the language and (2) the presence of an EPP effect on T and (and how it can be satisfied). I show that variation in these factors can capture a number of different raising profiles found cross-linguistically, including the hyper-raising pattern found in Zulu and Uyghur, the absence of raising in Makhuwa and Matengo, and the more familiar pattern of English.

Keywords

Raising-to-subject EPP Phi-agreement Clausal arguments 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to all of my Zulu consultants for help with the Zulu data in this paper; in particular, I’m grateful to Mthuli Percival Buthelezi, Mpho Dlamini, Monwabisi Mhlophe, and the Katamzi family for their continued time and patience over the years. Thanks as well to Vicki Carstens, Michael Diercks, Julie Legate, David Pesetsky, Jenneke van der Wal, Jochen Zeller, three anonymous reviewers, and audiences at GLOW, WCCFL, UC Santa Cruz, UW-Milwaukee, McGill, MIT, and the University of KwaZulu-Natal for helpful feedback and discussion.

References

  1. Alexiadou, Artemis, and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1998. Parametrizing Agr: Word order, V-movement and EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 491–539. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexiadou, Artemis, and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1999. Raising without infinitives and the nature of agreement. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 18, eds. Sonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason Haugen, and Peter Norquest, 15–25. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Google Scholar
  3. Alrenga, Peter. 2005. A sentential subject asymmetry in English and its implications for complement selection. Syntax 8: 175–207. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asarina, Alya. 2011. Case in Uyghur and beyond. PhD diss., MIT. Google Scholar
  5. Baker, Mark. 2003. Lexical categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker, Mark. 2008. The syntax of agreement and Concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Basilico, David. 2003. The topic of small clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 1–35. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boeckx, Cedric. 2003. Islands and chains: Resumption as stranding. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bošković, Željko. 2002. Expletives don’t move. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 32, ed. Masako Hirotani. Vol. 1, 21–40. Google Scholar
  10. Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-functional syntax. Hoboken: Blackwell Sci. Google Scholar
  11. Buell, Leston. 2005. Issues in Zulu morphosyntax. PhD diss., UCLA. Google Scholar
  12. Buell, Leston. 2007. Semantic and formal locatives: Implications for the Bantu locative inversion typology. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics 15: 105–120. Google Scholar
  13. Buell, Leston. 2012. Class 17 as a non-locative noun class in Zulu. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 33: 1–35. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carstens, Vicki. 2001. Multiple agreement and case deletion: Against phi-(in)completeness. Syntax 4: 147–163. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carstens, Vicki. 2005. Agree and EPP in Bantu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 219–279. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carstens, Vicki. 2011. Hyperactivity and hyperagreement in Bantu. Lingua 121: 721–741. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carstens, Vicki, and Michael Diercks. 2013a. The great escape: Raising out of finite clauses in Bantu languages. Handout from talk given at UCSC Colloquium, 2013. Google Scholar
  18. Carstens, Vicki, and Michael Diercks. 2013. Parameterizing case and activity: Hyperraising in Bantu. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 40, eds. Seda Kan, Claire Moore-Cantwell, and Robert Staubs. 99–118. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  19. Cheng, Lisa, and Laura J. Downing. 2014. Indefinite subjects in Durban Zulu. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 57: 5–25. Google Scholar
  20. Cheng Lisa Lai-Shen, and Laura J. Downing. 2009. Where’s the topic in Zulu? The Linguistic Review 26: 207–238. Google Scholar
  21. Chomsky, Noam. 1964. A transformational approach to syntax. In The structure of language, eds. Jerry Fodor and Jerry Katz, 211–245. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. Google Scholar
  22. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  23. Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  24. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–156. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  25. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in linguistics, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  26. Collins, Chris. 2004. The agreement parameter. In Triggers, eds. Anne Breitbarth and Henk van Riemsdijk, 115–136. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Contreras, Heles. 1991. On resumptive pronouns. In Current studies in Spanish linguistics, eds. Hector Campos and Fernando Martínez-Gil, 143–164. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Google Scholar
  28. Creissels, Denis, and Daniele Godard. 2005. The Tswana infinitive as a mixed category. In 12th international conference on head-driven phrase structure grammar (HPSG), ed. Stefan Müller, 70–90. Google Scholar
  29. Davidson, Donald. 1967. The logical form of action sentences. In The logic of decision and action, ed. Nicholas Rescher, 81–95. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press. Google Scholar
  30. Davies, William D., and Stanley Dubinsky. 2009. On the existence (and distribution) of sentential subjects. In Hypothesis A/Hypothesis B: Linguistic explorations in honor of David M. Perlmutter, eds. Donna Gerdts, John Moore, and Maria Polinsky, 111–128. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  31. Deal Amy Rose. 2015. Interaction and satisfaction in phi-agreement. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 45, eds. Thuy Bui and Deniz Ozyildiz. Vol. 1, 179–192. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  32. Diercks, Michael. 2012. Parameterizing case: Evidence from Bantu. Syntax 15, 253–286. Google Scholar
  33. Durie, Mark. 1985. A grammar of Acehnese on the basis of a dialect of North Aceh. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  34. Fernández-Salguiero, Gerardo. 2005. Agree, the EPP-F and further-raising in Spanish. In Experimental and theoretical approaches to Romance linguistics, eds. Randall Gess and Edward Rubin, 97–107. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fernández-Salguiero, Gerardo. 2008. The Case-F valuation parameter in Romance. In The limits of syntactic variation, ed. Theresa Biberauer, 295–310. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ferreira, Marcelo. 2004. Imperfectives and plurality. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 14, ed. Robert B. Young, 74–91. Cornell University: CLC Publications. Google Scholar
  37. Ferreira, Marcelo. 2009. Null subjects and finite control in Brazilian Portuguese. In Minimalist essays on Brazilian Portuguese syntax, ed. Jairo Nunes. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  38. Halpert, Claire. 2012. Argument licensing and agreement in Zulu. PhD diss., MIT. Google Scholar
  39. Halpert, Claire. 2015. Argument licensing and agreement. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Halpert, Claire, and Jochen Zeller. 2015. Double dislocation and raising-to-object in Zulu. The Linguistic Review 32: 475–513. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hartman, Jeremy. 2012. Varieties of clausal complementation. PhD diss., MIT. Google Scholar
  42. Henderson, Brent. 2006. Multiple agreement and inversion in Bantu. Syntax 9: 275–289. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Higginbotham, James. 1983. Logical form, binding, and nominals. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 395–420. Google Scholar
  44. Hiraiwa, Ken. 2001. Multiple Agree and the defective intervention constraint in Japanese. In Harvard University MIT Student Conference (HUMIT) 2000, eds. Ora Matushansky, Albert Costa, Javier Martin-Gonzalez, Lance Nathan, and Adam Szczegielniak, 67–80. Cambridge: MITWPL. Google Scholar
  45. Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69–96. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hornstein, Norbert, Ana Maria Martins, and Jairo Nunes. 2008. Perception and causative structures in English and European Portuguese: ϕ-feature agreement and the distribution of bare and prepositional infinitives. Syntax 11: 198–222. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Iatridou, Sabine. 1993. On nominative case assignment and a few related things. In Papers on case and agreement 2, ed. Colin Phillips. Vol. 19 of MIT working papers in linguistics, 175–196 Cambridge: MIT. Google Scholar
  48. Iatridou, Sabine, and David Embick. 1997. Apropos pro. Language 73: 58–78. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ishihara, Yuki. 2009. A note on the infinitival complements of perception verbs. Linguistic Research 25: 103–112. Google Scholar
  50. Julien, Marit. 2002. Syntactic heads and word formation. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  51. Karimi, Simin. 2005. A minimalist approach to scrambling: Evidence from Persian. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Karimi, Simin. 2008. Raising and control in Persian. In Aspects of Iranian linguistics, eds. Simin Karimi, Donald Stilo, and Vida Samiian, 177–208. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. Google Scholar
  53. Kayne, Richard. 2014. Why isn’t this a complementizer? In Functional structure from top to toe: The cartography of syntactic structures, ed. Peter Svenonius, Vol. 9, 188–231. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Koster, Jan. 1978. Why subject sentences don’t exist. In Recent transformational studies in European languages, ed. Samuel Jay Keyser. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  55. Legate, Julie Anne. 2012. Subjects in Acehnese and the nature of the passive. Language 88: 495–525. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Legate, Julie Anne. 2014. Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph. Cambridge: MIT Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Londahl, Terje. 2014. Sentential subjects: topics or real subjects. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 31, ed. Robert E. Santana-LaBarge, 315–324. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Google Scholar
  58. Martins, Ana Maria, and Jairo Nunes. 2005. Raising issues in Brazilian and European Portuguese. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 4: 53–77. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Moulton, Keir. 2009. Natural selection and the syntax of clausal complementation. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Google Scholar
  60. Moulton, Keir. 2015. CPs: Copies and compositionality. Linguistic Inquiry 46: 305–342. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Nyembezi, C.L. Sibusiso. 1991. Uhlelo lwesiZulu, 5th edn. Pietermaritzburg: Shuter and Shooter Publishers Ltd. Google Scholar
  62. Ordóñez, Francisco. 1997. Word order and clause structure in Spanish and other Romance languages. PhD diss, City University of New York. Google Scholar
  63. du Pessis, Jacobus A. 2010. The expletive in the African languages of South Africa. Stellenbosch University. Google Scholar
  64. Picallo, M. Carme, 2002. Abstract agreement and clausal arguments. Syntax 5: 116–147. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pires, Acrisio. 2006. The minimalist syntax of defective domains. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Polinsky, Maria. 2013. Raising and control. In The Cambridge handbook of generative syntax, ed. Marcel den Dikken. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  67. Polinsky, Maria, and Eric Potsdam. 2006. Expanding the scope of control and raising. Syntax 9: 171–192. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Polinsky, Maria, and Eric Potsdam. 2011. Diagnosing covert A-movement. Available as lingbuzz/001232. Accessed 9 March 2018. Google Scholar
  69. Postal, Paul. 1970. On coreferential complement subject deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 439–500. Google Scholar
  70. Postal, Paul. 1974. On raising. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  71. Postal, Paul. 2004. Skeptical linguistic essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  72. Preminger, Omer. 2011. Agreement as a fallible operation. PhD diss, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Google Scholar
  73. Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its failures. In Linguistic Inquiry Monograph, Vol. 68. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  74. Rackowski, Andrea, and Norvin Richards. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 565–599. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Richards, Norvin. 2016. Contiguity theory. Cambridge: MIT Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Roberts, Ian, and Anna Roussou. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rodrigues, Cilene. 2004. Impoverished morphology and A-movement out of case domains. PhD diss., University of Maryland Google Scholar
  78. Rosenbaum, Peter S. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  79. Sabelo, Nonhlanhla O. 1990. The possessive in Zulu. Master’s thesis, University of Zululand, KwaDlangezwa, South Africa. Google Scholar
  80. Slattery, Hugh. 1981. Auxiliary verbs in Zulu. Occasional papers of the Department of African Languages, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa. Google Scholar
  81. Ura, Hiroyuki. 1994. Varieties of raising and the feature-based bare phrase structure theory. In MIT occasional papers in linguistics, Vol. 7, Cambridge: MITWPL. Google Scholar
  82. van Urk, Coppe. 2015. A uniform syntax for phrasal movement: A Dinka Bor case study. PhD diss., MIT. Google Scholar
  83. van Urk, Coppe, and Norvin Richards. 2015. Two components of long-distance extraction: Successive cyclicity in Dinka. Linguistic Inquiry 46: 113–155. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Villa-Garcia, Julio. 2013. On the status of preverbal subjects in Spanish: Evidence for a dedicated subject position. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 42, eds. Stefan Keine and Shayne Sloggett, 245–256. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  85. de Vries, Mark. 2006. The syntax of appositive relativization: On specifying coordination, false free relatives, and promotion. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 229–270. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. van der Wal, Jenneke. 2009. Word order and information structure in Makhuwa-Enahara. PhD diss., Universiteit Leiden. Google Scholar
  87. van der Wal, Jenneke. 2012. Subject agreement and the EPP in Bantu agreeing inversion. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 6: 201–236. Google Scholar
  88. van der Wal, Jenneke. 2015. Evidence for abstract Case in Bantu. Lingua 165: 109–132. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Webelhuth, Gert. 1992. Principles and parameters of syntactic saturation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  90. Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 203–238. Google Scholar
  91. Williams, Edwin. 1983. Against small clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 287–308. Google Scholar
  92. Williams, Edwin. 1984. There-insertion. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 131–154. Google Scholar
  93. Yoneda, Nobuko. 2011. Word order in Matengo: Topicality and information roles. Lingua 121: 754–771. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Zeller, Jochen. 2006. Raising out of finite CP in Nguni: The case of fanele. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 24: 255–275. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Zeller, Jochen. 2008. The subject marker in Bantu as an antifocus marker. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 38: 221–254. Google Scholar
  96. Zeller, Jochen. 2012. Object marking in Zulu. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 30: 219–325. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Zeller, Jochen. 2013. Locative inversion in Bantu and predication. Linguistics 51: 1107–1146. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1997. Morphosyntax of verb movement: A minimalist approach to the syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations