RAISING AS A FREE SYNTACTIC OPERATION: EVIDENCE FROM SERBIAN
Главни садржај чланка
Сажетак
This paper examines the syntactic properties of the Serbian modal verb trebati ‘need’, which appears in the environment ‘NP – trebati ‘need’ – finite da-clause’. I show that trebati is a raising verb and that the preverbal NP is a (raised) subject. Trebati (φ-)agrees with the preverbal NP only optionally, which is surprising since other Serbian verbs agree with their subjects obligatorily. Furthermore, the subject is free to remain in the embedded clause, suggesting that the raising operation is not triggered by the need to satisfy unvalued features on matrix T (contra e.g., Chomsky 1981, 2008). I instead propose that A-movement (of this kind) is ‘free’; more precisely, it is fully optional, it can occur at any stage of the derivation (or not), and it is constrained only by the requirement that the output be well-formed. I show that this analysis accounts for the full range of data with trebati, but that it can also be applied to English-style raising constructions.
Downloads
Metrics
Детаљи чланка
Референце
Abels, Klaus. 2008. Towards a restrictive theory of (remnant) movement. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 7. 52–120. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.7.04abe
Aljović, Nadira. 2000. Unaccusativity and Aspect in SerBoCroatian. In C. Czinglar et al. (eds.), Proceedings of ConSOLE 8. Leiden: SOLE.
Baker, Mark. C., & Nadya Vinokurova. 2010. Two modalities of case assignment: Case in Sakha. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 28(3), 593–642. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-010-9105-1
Béjar, Susana. 2003. Phi-syntax: A theory of agreement. PhD thesis, University of Toronto.
Béjar, Susana & Milan Rezac. 2009. Cyclic Agree. Linguistic Inquiry 40, 35–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.1.35
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on Transformations. In S. R. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (eds.), A Festrschrift for Morris Halle, 232–286. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (eds.), Step by Step: Essays in Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In: M. Kenstowicz (ed.) Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4056.003.0004
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In R. Freidin, C. Otero & M. L. Zubizaretta (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262062787.003.0007
Davies, William & Stanley Dubinsky. 2004. The Grammar of Raising and Control: A Course in Syntactic Argumentation. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470755693
Den Dikken, Marcel. 2007. Phase extension contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction. Theoretical Linguistics 33(1). 1–41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/TL.2007.001
Gallego, Ángel & Juan Uriagereka. 2007. A critique of phase extension, with a comparison to phase sliding. Theoretical Linguistics 33(1). 65–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/TL.2007.004
Keine, Stefan & Bhamati Dash. 2018. The ups and downs of agreement. Ms., University of Southern California.
Lassiter, Daniel. 2011. Measurement and modality: The scalar basis of modal semantics. PhD thesis, NYU.
Lassiter, Daniel. 2020. Graded Modality: Qualitative and Quantitative Perspectives. Oxford: OUP. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118788516.sem074
May, Robert. 1979. Must comp-to-comp movement be stipulated? Linguistic Inquiry 10(4). 719–725.
Müller, Gereon. 2009. Ergativity, accusativity, and the order of Merge and Agree. In K. Grohmann (ed.), Explorations of phase theory: Features and arguments, 269–308. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213966.269
Perlmutter, David. 1970. The two verbs begin. In Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 107–119. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell.
Preminger, Omer. 2011. Agreement as a fallible operation. PhD thesis, MIT.
Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its failures. Cambridge, MA: MIT press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262027403.001.0001
Progovac, Ljiljana. 1991. Polarity in Serbo-Croatian: Anaphoric NPIs and pronominal PPIs. Linguistic Inquiry 22(3). 567–572.
Progovac, Ljiljana. 1993. Locality and subjunctive-like complements in Serbo-Croatian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 1: 116–144.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1976. The syntactic domain of anaphora. PhD thesis, MIT.
Rezac, Milan, Pablo Albizu & Ricardo Etxepare. 2014. The structural ergative of Basque and the theory of Case. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 32(4), 1273-1330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9239-7
Richards, Norvin. 1997. What moves where when in which language?. PhD thesis, MIT.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110883718
Simonović, Marko & Boban Arsenijević. 2014. Ličnost i bezličnost srpskog glagola trebati: Avanture teorijske lingvistike u prenormiranom domenu. Jezik, književnost, marginalizacija, 278–304.
Starke, Michal. 2009. Nanosyntax: A short primer to a new approach to language. Nordlyd 36(1). 1–6.
Todorović, Neda & Susi Wurmbrand. 2020. Finiteness across domains. In T. Radeva-Bork & P. Kosta (eds.), Current developments in Slavic Linguistics: Twenty years after, 47–66. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Veselinović, Dunja. 2019. The syntax and acquisition of modal verb flavors. PhD thesis, NYU.
Williams, Edwin. 2003. Representation theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wurmbrand, Susi. 1999. Modal verbs must be raising verbs. In Proceedings of WCCFL 18(1).
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2014. Restructuring across the world. In Complex visibles out there. Proceedings of the Olomouc Linguistics Colloquium.
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2015. Restructuring cross-linguistically. In Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society Annual Meeting 45. Amherst: GLSA, 227–240.