Advertisement

Passive do so

  • Benjamin Bruening
Article

Abstract

The received view is that the VP pro-form do so cannot be a verbal passive, although it can be unaccusative. I show that this is incorrect: do so can be passive. It can also take a raising to subject verb as its antecedent. This means that do so is compatible with all types of A-movement, although it does not permit A-bar movement of an object. I construct an analysis of do so where it is simply an intransitive verb plus an adverb. Do so combines with a Voice head, which can be unaccusative, passive, or active transitive. The subject of do so is base-generated in Spec-VoiceP, and does not move in unaccusatives or passives. Instead, do so must copy a function from its antecedent in the semantics. The subject of do so can be interpreted semantically as an internal argument if Voice is passive or unaccusative and the antecedent includes a trace, because of the way lambda abstraction works in A-movement. This analysis reconciles the evidence against movement in do so itself with arguments for A-movement in its antecedent. The copy mechanism explains voice and category mismatches, as well as split antecedents and ellipsis-containing antecedents.

Keywords

VP anaphora Do so A-movement Passive 

Notes

Acknowledgements

For helpful comments, the author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the associate editor, Kyle Johnson.

References

  1. Akmajian, Adrian, and Thomas Wasow. 1975. The constituent structure of VP and AUX and the position of the verb BE. Linguistic Analysis 1: 205–245. Google Scholar
  2. Arregui, Ana, Charles Clifton Jr., Lyn Frazier, and Keir Moulton. 2006. Processing elided verb phrases with flawed antecedents: The recycling hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language 55: 232–246. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baltin, Mark R. 2012. Deletion versus pro-forms: An overly simple dichotomy? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30: 381–423. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouton, Lawrence. 1969. Identity constraints on the do-so rule. Research on Language and Social Interaction 1: 231–247. Google Scholar
  5. Bouton, Lawrence. 1970. Do so: Do + adverb. In Studies presented to Robert B. Lees by his students, eds. Jerrold M. Sadock and Anthony L. Vanek, 17–38. Edmonton: Linguistics Research, Inc. Google Scholar
  6. Bowers, John. 2010. Arguments as relations. Cambridge: MIT Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The passive in lexical theory. In The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. Joan Bresnan, 3–86. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  8. Bruening, Benjamin. 2013. By-phrases in passives and nominals. Syntax 16: 1–41. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bruening, Benjamin. 2014. Word formation is syntactic: Adjectival passives in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32: 363–422. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bruening, Benjamin. 2015. Depictive secondary predicates, light verb give, and theories of double object constructions. Ms., University of Delaware. Available at http://udel.edu/~bruening/Downloads/DepictivesDOCs2.pdf. Accessed 28 February 2018.
  11. Bruening, Benjamin, and Thuan Tran. 2015. The nature of the passive, with an analysis of Vietnamese. Lingua 165: 133–172. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar
  13. Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Formal syntax, eds. Peter Culicover, Thomas Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian, 71–132. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, eds. Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  15. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  16. Chung, Sandra, William Ladusaw, and James McCloskey. 1995. Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language Semantics 3: 1–44. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cornish, Francis. 1992. So Be It: The discourse-semantic roles of so and it. Journal of Semantics 9: 163–178. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Culicover, Peter W., and Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dalrymple, Mary, Stuart Shieber, and Fernando Pereira. 1991. Ellipsis and higher-order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 399–452. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Deal, Amy Rose. 2009. The origin and content of expletives: Evidence from “selection”. Syntax 12: 285–323. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Doggett, Teal Bissell. 2004. All things being unequal: Locality in movement. PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
  22. Elbourne, Paul. 2001. E-type anaphora as NP-deletion. Natural Language Semantics 9: 241–288. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Elbourne, Paul. 2008. Ellipsis sites as definite descriptions. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 191–220. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Embick, David. 2004. On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 355–392. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fiengo, Robert, and Robert May. 1994. Indices and identity. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  26. Fox, Danny. 1999. Reconstruction, binding theory and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 157–196. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fox, Danny. 2002. Antecedent contained deletion and the copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 63–96. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fox, Danny, and Yosef Grodzinsky. 1998. Children’s passive: A view from the by-phrase. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 311–332. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gibson, Edward, Steve Piantadosi, and Kristina Fedorenko. 2011. Using mechanical Turk to obtain and analyze English acceptability judgments. Language and Linguistics Compass 5: 509–524. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Haddican, William. 2007. The structural deficiencies of verbal pro-forms. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 539–547. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hallman, Peter. 2004. Constituency and agency in VP. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 23, eds. Vineeta Chand, Ann Kelleher, Angelo J. Rodríguez, and Benjamin Schmeiser, 304–317. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Google Scholar
  32. Hallman, Peter. 2013. Predication and movement in passive. Lingua 125: 76–94. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hankamer, Jorge, and Ivan Sag. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7: 391–426. Google Scholar
  34. Hardt, Daniel. 1993. Verb phrase ellipsis: Form, meaning and processing. PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania. Google Scholar
  35. Hardt, Daniel. 1999. Dynamic interpretation of verb phrase ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 185–219. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Heim, Irene. 1990. E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 13: 137–177. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Heim, Irene. 1996. Predicates or formulas? evidence from ellipsis. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 7, eds. Aaron Lawson and Eun Cho, 197–221. Ithaca: Cornell University. Google Scholar
  38. Houser, Michael John. 2010. The syntax and semantics of do so anaphora. PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley. Available at http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~mhouser/Papers/do_so_anaphora.pdf. Accessed 28 February 2018.
  39. Huang, C.-T. James. 2013. Variations in non-canonical passives. In Non-canonical passives, eds. Artemis Alexiadou and Florian Schäfer, 95–114. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jayaseelan, K. A. 1990. Incomplete VP deletion and Gapping. Linguistic Analysis 20: 64–81. Google Scholar
  42. Johnson, Kyle. 2001. What VP ellipsis can do, and what it can’t, but not why. In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, eds. Mark Baltin and Chris Collins, 439–479. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Johnson, Kyle. 2009. Gapping is not (VP-) ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 289–328. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kehler, Andrew, and Gregory Ward. 1999. On the semantics and pragmatics of identifier so. In The semantics/pragmatics interface from different points of view, ed. Ken Turner, 233–256. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Google Scholar
  45. Kennedy, Christopher. 2008. Argument contained ellipsis. In Topics in ellipsis, ed. Kyle Johnson, 95–131. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  46. Kertz, Laura. 2013. Verb phrase ellipsis: The view from information structure. Language 89: 390–428. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1994. Secondary predicates. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3: 25–79. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, eds. John Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kratzer, Angelika. 2005. Building resultatives. In Event arguments: Foundations and applications, eds. Claudia Maienborn and Angelika Wöllstein, 177–212. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar
  50. Lakoff, George. 1971. On generative semantics. In Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology, eds. Danny D. Steinberg and Leon A. Jakobovits, 232–296. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  51. Lakoff, George, and John Robert Ross. 1966. Criterion for verb phrase constituency. In Mathematical linguistics and automatic translation, ed. Anthony G. Oettinger, 1–11. Cambridge: Harvard Computational Laboratory. Google Scholar
  52. Lakoff, George, and John Robert Ross. 1976. Why you can’t do so into the sink. In Notes from the linguistic underground, ed. James D. McCawley. Vol. 7 of Syntax and semantics, 101–111. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  53. Landman, Meredith. 2006. Variables in natural language. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Google Scholar
  54. Lappin, Shalom. 1984. VP anaphora, quantifier scope, and logical form. Linguistic Analysis 13: 273–315. Google Scholar
  55. Lasnik, Howard. 1995. A note on pseudogapping. In Papers on minimalist syntax, eds. Rob Pensalfini and Hiroyuki Ura. Vol. 27 of MIT working papers in linguistics, 143–164. Cambridge: MITWPL. Google Scholar
  56. Lasnik, Howard, and Robert Fiengo. 1974. Complement object deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 5: 535–571. Google Scholar
  57. Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito. 1992. Move α: Conditions on its application and output. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  58. Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  59. May, Robert. 1977. The grammar of quantification. PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
  60. Merchant, Jason. 2008. An asymmetry in voice mismatches in VP-ellipsis and pseudogapping. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 169–179. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Merchant, Jason. 2013. Voice and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 44: 77–108. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Miller, Philip. 2011. The choice between verbal anaphors in discourse. In Anaphora processing and applications: 8th Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Colloquium (DAARC) 2011, eds. Iris Hendrickx, Sobha Lalitha Devi, António Branco, and Ruslan Mitkov, 82–95. Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Miller, Philip. 2013. Usage preferences: The case of the English verbal anaphor do so. In 20th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG), ed. Stefan Müller, 121–139. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Available at http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2013. Accessed 28 February 2018. Google Scholar
  64. Mohanan, K. P. 1983. Functional and anaphoric control. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 641–674. Google Scholar
  65. Moulton, Keir. 2013. Raising from the dead. Linguistic Inquiry 44: 157–167. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Müller, Stefan. 2006. Phrasal or lexical constructions? Language 82: 850–883. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Müller, Stefan, and Stephen Wechsler. 2014. Lexical approaches to argument structure. Theoretical Linguistics 40: 1–76. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Nunberg, Geoffrey, Ivan A. Sag, and Thomas Wasow. 1994. Idioms. Language 70: 491–538. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Perlmutter, David M. 1978. Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. In Annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 4, 157–189. Google Scholar
  70. Perlmutter, David M., and Paul M. Postal. 1984. The 1-Advancement Exclusiveness Law. In Studies in relational grammar 2, eds. David M. Perlmutter and Carol G. Rosen, 81–125. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  71. Pollard, Carl, and Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Google Scholar
  72. Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge: MIT Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Ramchand, Gillian Catriona. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first-phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Reed, Lisa A. 2011. Get-passives. The Linguistic Review 28: 41–78. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rooth, Mats. 1992a. Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. In Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, eds. Steve Berman and Arild Hestvik. Stuttgart: Universitäten Stuttgart und Tübingen in Kooperation mit der IBM Deutschland. Google Scholar
  76. Rooth, Mats. 1992b. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 117–121. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rosenbaum, Peter. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  78. Ross, John Robert. 1972. Act. In Semantics of natural language, eds. Donald Davidson and Gilbert Harman, 70–126. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sag, Ivan. 1976. Deletion and logical form. PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
  80. Sag, Ivan, Thomas Wasow, and Emily Bender. 2003. Syntactic theory: A formal introduction. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  81. Schwarz, Bernhard. 2000. Topics in ellipsis. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Google Scholar
  82. Stroik, Thomas. 2001. On the light verb hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 362–369. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Szabolcsi, Anna. 1997. Strategies for scope taking. In Ways of scope taking, ed. Anna Szabolcsi, 109–154. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Tomioka, Satoshi. 2008. A step-by-step guide to ellipsis resolution. In Topics in ellipsis, ed. Kyle Johnson, 210–228. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  85. Ward, Gregory L., and Andrew Kehler. 2005. Syntactic form and discourse accessibility. In Anaphoric processing: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational modelling, eds. António Branco, Tony McEnery, and Ruslan Mitkov, 365–384. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wasow, Thomas. 1977. Transformations and the lexicon. In Formal syntax, eds. Peter Culicover, Adrian Akmajian, and Thomas Wasow, 327–360. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  87. Webber, Bonnie Lynn. 1978. A formal approach to discourse anaphora. PhD diss., Harvard University. Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Linguistics and Cognitive ScienceUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations