West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) (38th : 2020)

A Selectional Criterion for Adjunct Control Landau, Idan 2020-03-06

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
73804-Landau_I_Selectional_WCCFL38_2020_handout.pdf [ 244.79kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 73804-1.0389858.json
JSON-LD: 73804-1.0389858-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 73804-1.0389858-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 73804-1.0389858-rdf.json
Turtle: 73804-1.0389858-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 73804-1.0389858-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 73804-1.0389858-source.json
Full Text
73804-1.0389858-fulltext.txt
Citation
73804-1.0389858.ris

Full Text

 WCCFL 38, UBC, March 6-8, 2020   1   A Selectional Criterion for Adjunct Control  Idan Landau Ben Gurion University idanl@bgu.ac.il  Leading questions  • What determines the type of control an adjunct exhibits? • Control in complements is dual: Either by predication or by logophoric anchoring (TTC, Landau 2015). Does this duality of mechanism extend to adjuncts? • Between the two mechanisms, is there a universal default?  • What accounts for this default?  Preliminaries: OC vs. NOC  (1) OC is a local syntactic dependency between a matrix argument and PRO.   NOC is a non-local pragmatic dependency between a salient contextual  antecedent and PRO.  (2) Diagnostic properties  Locality, explicitness, humanness.  (See Williams 1992, Kawasaki 1993, Lyngfelt 1999, Landau 2013, 2017,    Green 2018, 2019)    The controller must be an argument of the immediately higher clause   The controller must be explicit (not implicit) The controller must be [+human]  OC  +  +  −  NOC  −  −  +     2  (3) Extensional relation between OC and NOC readings           OC    NOC           long-distance control             local [-human]       local [+human]       deictic control        control           control         arbitrary control           "implicit control"     Note: For the most part, the OC controller is the local matrix subject; but we'll  see a few exceptions (OC by objects into adjuncts).    Question: Is there really local NOC? Do OC and NOC overlap? Yes, stay with us to  the bitter end and find out…  Classification of controlled adjuncts in English (10 types)  (4) Strict OC adjuncts: Only OC is possible.   OC/NOC adjuncts: Either OC or NOC is possible.    There are no "strict NOC adjuncts" – a logical possibility that is nonetheless  unattested (why? that's another reason to stay tuned…).   Question: What predicts the profile of any given adjunct? What would be the  "acquisition cue" for the child to correctly classify an adjunct as either strict  OC or as OC/NOC?   Spoiler: Whether or not a lexical subject is possible (see below).  Strict OC adjuncts  (5) Goal clauses  "The main clause describes a kind of (possibly abstract) motion towards the  goal expressed in the infinitive" (Huettner 1989:40). Only goal oriented verbs may take goal clauses.    3   a. John went out to smoke.   b. Max works hard to stay out of jail.   c.    * John hammered to hang the picture.    Unlike rationale clauses (RatC), goal clauses (i) scope under negation, (ii) form a  single event with the matrix.    c. John didn't work hard to stay out of jail.    Reading: >>Adjunct, *Adjunct>>  d. John didn't work hard and stay late (in order) to impress the boss.    Readings: >>Adjunct, Adjunct>>  e.    * Last month, Max worked hard to stay out of jail next month.   f.     Last month, Max worked hard so that Bob will stay out     of jail next month. (6) Goal clauses resist NOC and lexical subjects   a. Maryi was dying for a cigarette so Johnj went out [PRO*i/j to smoke].     Likewise, it's impossible to get arbitrary or deictic control.   b. John went out (in order) for Bob to smoke.  *Goal, RatC    (7) Result clauses   The adjunct expresses a non-intended sequel or a natural result of the main clause. Only unaccusative matrix verbs can take result clauses.   a. Mary grew up to be a famous actress.   b. The sofa folds out to make a bed.   c.    * The leaves trembled in the wind to fall down.   Note: Inanimate control must be licensed as OC.  (8) Result clauses resist NOC and lexical subjects   a. Johni is a gifted farmer. Hei keeps breaking records. This summer,     hisi pumkinsj grew [PRO*i/j to become famous in the entire county].   b.   * The doori opened again [PRO to try to close iti].    c.  The doori opened again [after PRO trying to close iti].     (Green 2019:16)  4   d.   * Mary grew up [for the world to recognize her talent].  e.   *  The sofa folds out [for the bed to be unnecessary]. (9) Stimulus clauses   The adjunct expresses the stimulus of the event in the main clause. The  embedded verb must express a perceptual event and the matrix verb an  involuntary response.  a.    Mary smiled to think what a fool she had been.  b.  I wept to hear the stories of survivors about their lives in the camp.   c.    * Suzan frowned to look at the awful mess.     [look is voluntary]  (10) Stimulus clauses resist NOC and lexical subjects  a. Maryi giggled. Billj blushed [PROj/*i to see heri/*himj in underwear].   b. Maryi giggled. Billj blushed as shei saw himj in underwear.    c. Bill smiled [(*for Mary) to see the baby calm down]. (11) Subject purpose clauses (SPC)   The adjunct expresses the purpose/utility/function of the matrix theme. The  matrix  verb must express creation/transfer/presentation.  a. She bought/*sold a dogi [PROi to play with the children].   b. I ordered this floating shelf (*in order) to hold all my art books.    c. I keep this UV lamp to protect me from those dreadful mosquitos.    Note: Inanimate control must be licensed as OC.  (12) SPC resist NOC and lexical subjects  a. Maxi wondered where I bought that nice shelfj  [PRO*i/j to hold/*catalogue    my art books].   b. We're now hiring (people).   c. We're now hiring *(people) to manage the marketing for us.  By definition, SPC's lack a lexical subject; adding one turns them into RatC.  d. ? She bought/sold the dog [(in order) for the cat to play with the children].      5  Alternating OC/NOC adjuncts  (13) Rationale clauses  Rationale: human intention, natural design, teleology.  OC is possible, evidenced by inanimate controllers:  a.  Flowersi produce pollen [in order PROi to reproduce].   b.  This booki was written [in order PROi to be read].          (Williams 1992)  c.  The housei was emptied [(in order) PROi to be demolished].                         (Español-Echevarría 1998) (14) RatC allow NOC and allow lexical subjects  a. (A comment on a video demonstrating tennis techniques:)    Note how the weight is going forwards to get power into the shot.                      (Duffley 2014:204)  b.  The door is open to greet passing neighbors.   c.  The painting was on the wall in order to check how it would be received.  d. Billi will introduce the ambassador to the president [in order PRO to give    himi the opportunity to observe their reactions].             (Español-Echevarría 2000:101)   e. George bought a bigger apartment [in order for his girlfriend to  move in    with him]. (15) Object purpose clauses (OPC)   The adjunct expresses the purpose/utility/function of the matrix theme, which  binds an embedded object gap. The matrix verb must express creation/ transfer/  presentation.   Typically, the controller is a matrix benefactive, or, if there isn't one, agent.   a. Carol bought Jimj a racki [CP Opi [PROj to hang coats on ti]].  b. Carolj bought a racki [CP Opi [PROj to hang coats on ti]].   OC is demonstrated by inanimate control:   c. They provided my devicei with a connector cable [PROi to be charged with].  (16) OPC allow NOC and allow lexical subjects  a. I left it in [heri mailbox] [PROi to look over ___ once she returned from    the Bahamas].                 (Stromdhal 2018)   6   b. They're kept in the overhead compartment [PROarb to use  ___ in case     of emergency].             (Stromdhal 2018)   c. The cari was in the showroom [PRO to see ___ ].        (Whelpton 2002)   d. Check out this tennis racket. I ordered it [for you to play with].    e. The car was in the showroom [for the crowds to see].   (17) Temporal (and without-) clauses    OC  a. That oveni worked for 25 years [before PROi breaking down in your place].   b. Around here, iti always snows [before PROi raining].   NOC   c.   There won’t be any progress [without PRO insisting on guidance     from the outside].    d.  That oasis was a vision [after PRO dragging ourselves through     the desert all day].   And they may even co-exist (Green 2018:40):   e. The pooli was the perfect temperature [after PROi/arb being in the hot sun   all day].  (18) Temporal (and without-) clauses allow lexical subjects   - though sometimes only under the nominal or finite variant.   a.   John retired [before/after Bob's announcing his replacement].   b. He managed to climb to the top [without anyone helping him at any stage].   c.   She was very dreamy [while/when Bob was talking to us].   Note: What's important is that the same subordinator can introduce a   propositional adjunct. (19) Absolutive clauses ("free adjuncts")   OC   a.  [PROi having run smoothly until then], the economic enginei began to    sputter already at the beginning of the year.   b. Iti was pitch dark and very cold, [PROi having snowed and thawed recently].    7   NOC  a. [Being PROi not yet fully grown], hisi trousers were too long.                            (Kortmann 1991:60)  b. [PRO Looking out of the window], there were the flower beds in the     front garden.                    (Jespersen 1954:409)   c. [PRO standing on the patio], the plants obscure/highlight the duck pond.                         (Hartman 2008:206) (20) Absolutive clauses allow lexical subjects  a. [My family being financially secure], there was no reason  to take on another   day job.   b. [With George watching every step of hers], Lyn could hardly experience    her new freedom.   Note: Perhaps with is always projected as subordinator; at PF, spellout is optional  before a lexical subject and excluded before PRO.    (21) Justification clauses   The adjunct expresses the justification for the action in the main clause   (justification implies causation plus some moral judgment); often, the main clause  is understood as a reward or punishment.   OC (by object or subject)  a. Have you ever sent a steaki back [for PROi being cooked wrong]?   b. He criticized the projecti [for PROi being too expensive].    c. The Italian noveli won the prize [for PROi being so well-written].    NOC   d. They awarded it [for PRO winning the contest].     e. I put roses on the front porch of [heri house] [for PROi being so kind to me].                        (Green 2018:169)  f. Another five scores were cancelled [for PRO cheating by other means]. (22) Justification clauses allow lexical subjects   a. Robin Lasky started the piling on Bill Thompson by offering several bucks  [for him helping Mary Martin find her lost and abandoned phone on a desert  island].  b. Our life was blessed [for her being so much a part of it].   8  (23) Telic clauses   The adjunct expresses an unexpected outcome (telos) of the action in the main clause. It is interpreted as factive, and is (nearly) always introduced by only. The matrix predicate cannot be stative (Huettner 1989, Whelpton 2002).   OC (Whelpton 2002)   a. The suni radiated heat to the surrounding planets,     [only PROi to dim just as life began to develop].   b. Iti was sunny in the morning, [only PROi to rain later].   NOC (contra all previous accounts!)  c. A welcome cup of tea was prepared [only PRO to find that the     water was full of soot].  d. Ouri road to the quarter final was fantastic [only PROi to lose to a team like Saudi Arabia on penalties].  e. Ii remember that lock-in stunt. Absolutely brilliant. Then one day you   were gone, [only PROi to find you on Solid Gold].  (24) Telic clauses allow lexical subjects   a. It's not uncommon for traders and money managers to sell into a  seemingly    blowoff top, [only for the market to continue to advance higher].   b. You can spend weeks waiting for a window of moonless sky to come     around, [only for the weather to turn against you and rain]. Core theoretical assumptions (25) a. Adjunct structure   [PP P [CP PRO …]]  (P – overt or null)  b. Adjunct selection   (i) P c-selects CP and s-selects ⟦CP⟧. In principle, P may select a property-   denoting clause or a propositional clause.    (ii) PP s-selects the matrix eventuality (possibly even c-selects specific     light v heads); on adjuncts as selectors, see Ernst 2002, 2007, 2014.   (26) The duality of control  Under the Two-Tiered Theory of Control (TTC, Landau 2015), nonfinite clauses may denote properties or "perspectival" propositions, i.e., properties predicated of a coordinate of the context of evaluation (AUTHOR or ADDRESSEE), specified on a  9  logophoric C. Predicative control clauses are formed by moving PRO to [Spec,FinP]; the chain is interpreted as -abstraction. Logophoric control clauses are formed by projecting a CP layer on top of this FinP, in which the derived predicate is saturated by a null nominal (pro), associated with the logophoric anchor.    a.  Predicative clause (type <e,st>)        [FinP PROi Fin [TP PROi … ]]   b.  Propositional clause (type < st>)     [CP pro C+log [FinP PROi Fin [TP PROi … ]]] (27) Complements: A predicative clause produces OC (by predication).    A propositional clause also produces OC, because C+log is subject to selection  and projects the doxastic counterpart of the controller (de se).    Subjects: Only propositional (saturated) clauses are acceptable →    no control or NOC.      Adjuncts: Predicative clause → OC; propositional clause → no control or NOC. (28) Propositional variant  [Pi CP]W' is a propositional variant of an adjunct [Pj [PRO … ]]W iff:   a. Pi=Pj   b. ⟦CP⟧ is of type <s,t>  Note: Finiteness mismatches are tolerated as long as the modification relation  contributed by P is identical. So: How can this system shed light on the empirical description of the ten types of controlled adjuncts in English, as presented above?    (29) The propositional variant criterion (PVC)     For a clausal adjunct [P [PRO … ]]W:   a. W has no propositional variant  W is predicative       W displays strict OC    b. W has a propositional variant  W is either predicative or      propositional  W displays OC or NOC   Note: The PVC provides a powerful acquisition cue.  10  (30) Empirical profile of adjunct control in English   Adjunct type Control Propositional variant Goal OC − Result OC − Stimulus OC − SPC OC − OPC OC / NOC + Rationale OC / NOC + Temporal OC / NOC + Absolutive OC / NOC + Justification OC / NOC + Telic OC / NOC + (31) Explanation: P-heads of adjuncts come in two types. Type A only selects predicates; type B selects either predicates or propositions. Accordingly, type A occurs with strict OC adjuncts; type B occurs either with OC adjuncts (when selecting a predicate) or with NOC adjuncts (when selecting a proposition); the last option also allows no control (lexical subject). (32) Further consequences (not detailed here)  a. Compositionality: Strict OC adjuncts are predicates that modify the root, type  <e,<s,t>>; alternating OC adjuncts are predicate-relations that modify v', type                     <<e,<s,t>>,<e,<s,t>>; alternating NOC adjuncts are propositional relations  that modify vP, type <<s,t>,<s,t>>.  b. Configuration: Strict OC adjuncts are VP-internal for all tests (VP- fronting/ellipsis,  pseudocleft); alternating adjuncts are either VP-internal or  VP- external.  Is there a strict NOC adjunct?  (33) Speaker oriented adjuncts  [Quirk et al. 1985:1068-73, Kortmann 1991, Meinunger 2006, Lyngfelt 2009;  see Duffley 2014:99-102 for much evidence that this class is not idiomatic or  formulaic, but quite productive].   11   a. [PRO to be honest], John would be better off without Mary.   b. [PRO judging from experience], John would be better off without Mary.   Green (2018): These are strict NOC adjuncts.   → no, they're quite different! (34) "Speaker-oriented" is a misnomer  In an interrogative context, these adjuncts shift to addressee-orientation.  a. [PRO judging from my/*your experience], John would be better off     without Mary.   b. [PRO judging from your/*my experience], would John be better off     without Mary?   Origo shift: A discourse-dependent item that is oriented to the speaker in  declarative clauses shifts to the addressee in interrogative clauses (Garrett 2001,  Woods 2014, Spadine 2018, Zu 2018).   → Speech-act (SA) oriented adjuncts; "SA-orientation" links to the AUTHOR or  ADDRESSEE role. (35) Embedding "shifts" the context  a. NOC (PRO = embedded AUTHOR/ADDRESSEE)    Johni told Maryj that [PROi/j having such experience],      this job would be a piece of cake.   b. SA-oriented under declarative (PRO = embedded AUTHOR)    Johni told Maryj that [PROi/*j judging from experience],     such offers were very rare.   c. SA-oriented under interrogative (PRO = embedded ADDRESSEE)  Johni asked Maryj whether, [PRO*i/j judging from experience],    such offers were very rare.   (36) Unlike NOC, embedding of SA-oriented adjuncts is not iterative   a. Johni said/claimed that [PROi speaking from hisi experience], such matters    require the intervention of the police.    b. Johni said that Maryj claimed that [PRO*i/j speaking from herj/*hisi     experience], such matters require the intervention of the police.    c. Johni said that Mary claimed that [PROi having shared hisi experience     with them], the task was much more manageable.     12  (37) Unlike NOC, embedding of SA-oriented adjuncts is highly verb-sensitive    a. Johni thought that [PROi judging from experience], such offers were very rare.   … ?knew/??realized/*imagined/*denied/*forgot/*feared …   b. Johni thought/knew/realized/imagined/denied/forgot/feared that    [PROi having no experience in photojournalism], such offers were very rare.  Note: That's a hallmark of indexical shift (Deal 2017, Sundaresan 2018). (38) Unlike NOC adjuncts, SA-oriented adjuncts reject lexical subjects   a.   * [For me to be absolutely frank], John would be better off without Mary.   b.   * [For you to be absolutely frank], would John be better off without Mary? (39) Proposal  SA-oriented adjuncts are not strict NOC, but a special kind of strict OC adjuncts. They attach very high in the left periphery (Cinque 1999, Ernst 2014), to the SA-projection that hosts the AUTHOR (in declaratives) or the ADDRESSEE (in interrogatives). Their context of evaluation may be shifted from the utterance context under very restricted circumstances.  → SA-oriented adjuncts are predicative (explaining (38)). They are predicated of the AUTHOR/ADDRESSEE nominal in specifier of a SA projection. Why are there no strict NOC adjuncts?  (40) S-selection in nonfinite adjuncts   Adjunct's head s-selects Propositional variant Strict OC adjuncts property − OC/NOC adjuncts property/proposition + *Strict NOC adjuncts proposition +  By default, controlled adjuncts map to predicates. Why? [See Stassen 1985 for extensive typological evidence for – what amounts to - this claim] (41) On the universal absence of a hypothetical GOBE  GOBE is a prepositional head that selects propositional adjuncts: adjuncts with  lexical subjects (a-b), NOC adjuncts (c), but not OC adjuncts (d).  a. Johni jumped [GOBE Mary/hei fell down].   b. The keysi disappeared [GOBE theyi dropped out of the bag].     13   c. Billi couldn't understand it. The keysi disappeared     [GOBE PROi placing them in the top drawer].   d.   * The keysi disappeared [GOBE PROi dropping out of the bag].   (42) Mapping the input  The child hears a variety of examples and must construct appropriate structural  analyses for them.  a. Jack went to sleep after eating his dinner.    → OC (predicate) / NOC (proposition)   b. The balloon exploded after touching the fire.    →  OC (predicate)   c. The monkey got angry after the racoon had stolen the coconut.     → No control (proposition)  Question: Does (a) receive a dual analysis?  (43) Economy of Projection (EoP)   All else being equal, a more minimal structure is favored over a less minimal  one (Grimshaw 1994, Bošković 1996, Speas 2006).    "All else being equal" = lexical and semantic equivalence (44) a.  Predicative adjunct:    [PP P [FinP PROi Fin [TP PROi … ]]]   b.  Propositional adjunct: [PP P [CP pro C+log [FinP PROi Fin [TP PROi … ]]]]   → When a predicative and a propositional analysis of an adjunct proceed from  the same lexical base and produce the same interpretation, project the predicative  analysis.     → Speakers will always entertain a predicative structure for any adjunct with local control. If the controller is inanimate, a predicative structure is the only option; if the controller is human, a predicative structure is favored by EoP. A propositional structure will only be added to accommodate NOC or no control.  (45) Acquisition evidence for the "predicative default"  Children between ages 4-5 pass through a stage in which they force pronouns embedded in finite temporal adjuncts to refer to a matirx argument, and sometimes even reject sentences without such a pronoun (McDaniel, Cairns and Hsu (1991).  a. Groveri pats Bertj [before hei/j/*k climbs up the steps].  → These children over-apply the predicative default to finite adjuncts.    14  (46) Can EoP be overridden?  If all else is not equal, the non-minimal (NOC) structure may be licensed.   How can local control via OC be semantically distinct from local control via NOC? Clue: binding vs. coreference.  PRO is a locally bound variable, but in NOC, it is linked to a free (logophoric) variable, the pro in [Spec,CP].    → sloppy reading in OC, strict reading in NOC (47) Temporal/rationale adjuncts allow strict readings!   (Contra Hornstein 2003, Boeckx, Hornstein and Nunes 2010:87, Green 2018:138).  a.      Bill felt much better after quitting his heavy drinking. His family did too.   [His familiy felt much better after him quitting his heavy drinking]  b.  Ann and her douchebag partner Paul are talking about their first baby.    Ann: You know, I was so nervous before having the epidural.    Paul: Yeah, I remember. Well, I wasn't.    [I wasn't so nervous before you had the epidural]   c. Clearly, Father Taylor glows with enthusiasm when preaching about     Eternal Torment, but nobody in the audience does.    [Nobody in the audience glows with enthusiasm when Father Taylor     preaches about Eternal Torment]   d.  Tom lied about his age in order to be admitted to Lakeside School.     His parents cooperated; they did too.    [They lied about his age in order for him to be admitted to Lakeside School].  (48) …But not if the controller is inanimate! (OC→ sloppy)   a. The storm was over. Electricityi returned [after PROi being cut off     for 11 hours. Waterj did [return after PROj/*i being cut off     for 11 hours] too.  b. Water was cut off for 16 hours, but returned after electricity had been     cut off for 11 hours.  c. The carpetsi were removed from the room [in order PROi to be dry cleaned].         # The furniturej were [removed from the room in order PROj/*i to be     dry cleaned] too.    d. The furniture were removed from the room in order for the carpets     to be dry cleaned.   15  (49) Extensional relation between OC and NOC readings         OC    NOC           long-distance control             local [-human]       local [+human]       deictic control        control           control         arbitrary control           "implicit control"     → the overlap zone is real!   (Note: This is parallel to the co-existence of binding and coreference LFs for pronouns) Conclusion • Duality of mechanism across all control constructions: predicative vs. propositional clauses • In adjuncts: Predicative clause → OC, propositional clause → NOC/no control • Two classes of adjuncts: Strict OC (goal, result…) vs. OC/NOC (temporal, rationale…) • An independent criterion to identify the two classes: The PVC • A universal asymmetry: Predicative adjuncts are the default. Reason: EoP     References Boeckx, Cedric, Norbert Hornstein, and Jairo Nunes. 2010. Control as Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bošković, Željko. 1996. Selection and the Categorial Status of Infinitival Complements. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 14, 269-304. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Funcitonal Heads: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. Deal, Amy Rose. 2017. Shifty Asymmetries: Universals and Variation in Shifty Indexicality. Ms., Berkeley University. Duffley, Patrick J. 2014. Reclaiming Control as a Semantic and Pragmatic Phenomenon. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ernst, Thomas. 2002. The Syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University press. Ernst, Thomas. 2007. On the Role of Semantics in a Theory of Adverb Syntax. Lingua 117, 1008-1033. Ernst, Thomas. 2014. The Syntax of Adverbs. In The Routledge Handbook of Syntax, ed. by Andrew Carnie, Daniel Siddiqi and Yosuke Sato, 108-130. London: Rouledge. Español-Echevarría, Manuel. 1998. The Syntax of Purposive Expressions. PhD dissertation, UCLA. Español-Echevarría, Manuel. 2000. The Interaction of Obligatory and Nonobligatory Control in Rationale Clauses. In Proceedings of WCCFL 19 ed. by Roger Billerey and Brook Danielle Lillehaugen, 97-110. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Garrett, Edward J. 2001. Evidentiality and Assertion in Tibetan. PhD dissertation, UCLA. Green, Jeffrey J. 2018. Adjunct Control: Syntax and Processing. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland   16  Green, Jeffrey J. 2019. A Movement Theory of Adjunct Control. Glossa 4(1), 87. Grimshaw, Jane. 1994. Minimal Projection and Clause Structure. In Syntactic Theory and First Language Acquisition: Cross Linguistic Perspectives - Volume I: Heads, Projections and Learnability, ed. by Barbara Lust, Margarita Suñer and Jonh Whitman, 75-83. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum  Hartman, Jeremy. 2008. Dwarf-Class Verbs, Theta-Theory and Argument Linking. In Proceedings WCCFL 27, ed. by Natasha Abner and and Jason Bishop, 203-210. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla. Hornstein, Norbert. 2003. On Control. In Minimalist Syntax, ed. by Randall Hendrick, 6-81. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Huettner, Alison K. 1989. Adjunct Infinitives in English. PhD dissertation, UMASS. Jespersen, Otto. 1954. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part V, Syntax: Vol. 4. London: Allen & Unwin. Kawasaki, Noriko. 1993. Control and Arbitrary Interpretation in English. PhD dissertation, UMASS. Kortmann, Bernd. 1991. Free Adjuncts and Absolutes in English: Problems of Control and Interpretation. New York: Routledge. Landau, Idan. 2013. Control in Generative Grammar: A Research Companion. Cambridge University Press. Landau, Idan. 2015. A Two-Tiered Theory of Control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Landau, Idan. 2017. Adjunct Control Depends on Voice. In A Pesky Set: Papers for David Pesetsky, ed. by Claire Halpert, Hadas Kotek and Coppe van Urk, 93-102. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. Lyngfelt, Benjamin. 1999. Optimal Control: An OT Perspective on the Interpretation of PRO in Swedish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 63, 75-104. Lyngfelt, Benjamin. 2009. Towards a Comprehensive Construction Grammar Account of Control: A Case Study of Swedish Infinitives. Constructions and Frames 1, 153-189. McDaniel, Dana, Helen S. Cairns, and Jennifer Ryan Hsu. 1991. Control Principles in the Grammars of Young Children. Language Acquisition 4, 297-335. Meinunger, André. 2006. Interface Restrictions on Verb Second. Linguistic Review 23, 127–160. Spadine, Carolyn. 2018. Control in Illocutionary Adjuncts as a Diagnostic for Discourse Arguments. Poster presented at NELS 49, Cornell University. Speas, Margaret. 2006. Economy, Agreement, and the Representation of Null Arguments. In Arguments and Agreement, ed. by Peter Ackema, Patrick Brandt, Maaike Schoorlemmer and Fred Weerman, 35-75. Oxford: Oxfor University Press. Stassen, Leon. 1985. Comparison and Universal Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Stromdhal, Larson. 2018. The Control of Infinitival Adjuncts and Ditransitive Constructions. Poster presented at the 92nd annual meeting of the LSA, Salt Lake City, UT. Sundaresan, Sandhya. 2018. An Alternative Model of Indexical Shift: Variation and Selection Without Context-Overwriting. Ms., Universität Leipzig. Whelpton, Matthew. 2002. Locality and Control with Infinitives of Result. Natural Language Semantics 10, 167-210. Williams, Edwin. 1992. Adjunct Control. In Control and Grammar, ed. by Richard Larson, Sabine Iatridou, Utpal Lahiri and James Higginbotham, 297–322. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Woods, Rebecca. 2014. The Syntax of Orientation Shifting: Evidence from English High Adverbs. In Proceedings of ConSOLE 22, ed. by Martin Kohlberger, Kate Bellamy and Eleanor Dutton, 205-230. Leiden: Leiden University Centre for Linguistics. Zu, Vera. 2018. Discourse Participants and the Structural Representation of Context. PhD dissertation, NYU.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.73804.1-0389858/manifest

Comment

Related Items