On Case Transmission in Control and Raising
Constructions |
|
Adam
Przepiórkowski (Polish Academy of Sciences) |
In accordance with standard GB (Government and Binding) and standard HPSG
(Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar) assumptions, Polish raising
constructions exhibit 'case transmission', as in (1)-(2) below, where the
adjective introduced by the lower verb agrees with the case of the subject of
the higher verb.
(1) Maria-NOM zaczęła być
miła-NOM.
Maria
started be nice
`Maria started to be nice.'
(2) Pięć-ACC dziewcząt-GEN
zaczęło być miłych-GEN / miłe-ACC.
Five
girls started be nice
nice
`Five girls started to be
nice.'
According to the standard assumptions of either theory, control constructions
should not allow for a similar case transmission. This prediction is only partially fulfilled in Polish: case
transmission is not observed in object control constructions (cf. (3)), where
the adjective occurs in the instrumental case, as it always does when the subject
is PRO (cf. (4)), but it is still observed in subject control constructions,
contrary to expectations (cf. (5)-(6)).
(3) Janek kazał Tomkowi-DAT być miłym-INS / *miłemu-DAT.
Janek ordered Tomek be nice nice
`Janek ordered Tomek to be
nice.'
(4) [PRO Być miłym-INS]
to [PRO być głupim-INS].
be nice PRED be
stupid
`To be nice is to be stupid.'
(5) Janek-NOM chce być miły-NOM.
Janek
wants be nice
`Janek wants to be nice.'
(6) Pięć-ACC dziewcząt-GEN
chce być miłe-ACC / miłych-GEN.
five
girls wants be nice
nice
`Five girls want to be nice.'
Such examples are discussed by Franks 1995, but no worked out solution is
proposed, and the tentative solutions suffer from a number of drawbacks, as
Franks himself notes.
The aim of this paper is to propose an HPSG account of such data, which
modifies the standard HPSG assumptions concerning the control/raising
dichotomy. In particular, building on
Hudson's 1998 observations about Icelandic and Ancient Greek, we propose to
decouple two properties which are assumed to jointly differentiate between raising
and control:
1. the raised element, unlike the controlling element, is assigned no semantic
role by the raising verb (this is an HPSG analogue of GB's Theta-criterion);
2. the raised argument is structure-shared with its base position (an HPSG
analogue of GB's movement or chain formation), while the controller is only
co-indexed with the controlled element.
We argue that only the property 1. truly distinguishes between raising and
control and that, in Polish, subject control, but not object control, does
involve structure sharing. We show how
this explains the facts (1)-(6) above and we further justify this analysis
citing (after Hudson) similar Icelandic and Ancient Greek data. We formalise the account by proposing a
single simple non-configurational language-specific Control Principle.
Finally, we suggest how to modify this principle in order to account for
the fact that, in case of 'long distance' subject control and raising, also the
'non trasmitting', i.e., instrumental (as in (3)-(4)) option is possible, as in
the following examples:
(7) a. Jan-NOM wydaje się
szczęśliwy-NOM / ?*szczęśliwym-INS.
Jan
seems happy happy
`John seems happy.'
b. Jan chce wydawać się szczęśliwy / ?szczęśliwym.
wants seem
c. Jan chce spróbować wydawać się ?szczęśliwy / szczęśliwym.
try
d. Jan bał się nawet chcieć spróbować wydawać się ??szczęśliwy
/
szczęśliwym.
feared even
want try
`John was afraid to even
want to try to seem happy.'
REFERENCES:
Steven Franks. (1995). "Parameters of Slavic
Morphosyntax." Oxford University
Press.
Richard Hudson. (1998). "Functional Control with and without Structure-Sharing." In: Anna Siewierska and Jae Jung Song
(eds.), "Case, Typology and Grammar", pp.151-169. John Benjamins.