Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-wxhwt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T00:30:07.666Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

VP complements: evidence from Welsh1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Robert D. Borsley
Robert D. Borsley
Affiliation:
University College London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A major controversy in syntactic theory concerns the nature of control verbs, verbs like try, which govern equi-NP-deletion in classical transformational grammar. For recent versions of the extended standard theory and, in particular, the government-binding theory, such verbs take a sentential complement with a PRO subject. (Cf. Chomsky 1980, 1981, 1982 and Koster & May 1982.) On an alternative analysis, originating in Bresnan (1971) and Brame (1975, 1976), and developed by Bresnan (1978, 1982), Gazdar (1982) and others, they take VP complements. A similar dispute arises over raising verbs, verbs like seem, which govern subject raising in classical transformational grammar.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , September 1984 , pp. 277 - 302
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Awbery, G. M. (1975). Welsh mutations: syntax or phonology? ArchL 6.Google Scholar
Awbery, G. M. (1976). The syntax of Welsh: a transformational study of the passive. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Borsley, R. D. (1983 a). A Welsh agreement process and the status of VP and S. In Gazdar, G.Klein, E. H. & Pullum, G. K. (eds), Order, concord and constituency. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Borsley, R. D. (1983 c). Welsh and the EST theory of case. Paper presented at the Spring Meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain, Sheffield, 03 1983.Google Scholar
Borsley, R. D. (1984). On the nonexistence of VPs. In Geest, W. de & Putseys, Y. (eds), Sentential complementation. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Brame, M. K. (1975). On the abstractness of syntactic structure: the VP controversy. LAn I. 191–204.Google Scholar
Brame, M. K. (1976). Conjectures and refutations in syntax and semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. W. (1971). Sentence stress and syntactic transformations. Lg 47. 257–281.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. W. (1978). A realistic transformational grammar. In Halle, M., Bresnan, J. W. & Miller, G. (eds), Linguistic theory and psychological reality. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. W. (1982). Control and complementation. LIn 13. 343–434.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. (1983). Outline of a semantic theory of (obligatory) control. In Barlow, M., Flickinger, D. P. & Wescoat, M. (eds), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Liguistics, vol. 2, 19–31.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1980). On binding. LIn II. 1–46.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G. (1982). Phrase structure grammar. In Jacobson, P. & Pullum, G. K. (eds), The nature of syntactic representation. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. 131–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harlow, S. (1981). Government and relativisation in Celtic. In Heny, F. (ed.), Binding and filtering. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1977). X-syntax: a study of phrase structure. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Jacobson, P. (1982). Evidence for gaps. In Jacobson, P. & Pullum, G. K. (eds), The nature of syntactic representation. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Jones, M. & Thomas, A. R. (1977). The Welsh language: studies in its syntax and semantics. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar
Klein, E. & Sag, I. A. (1982). Semantic type and control. In Barlow, M., Flickinger, D. P. & Sag, I. A. (eds), Developments in generalized phrase structure grammar; Stanford working papers in grammatical theory, vol. 2. Bloomington, Indiana; Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Koster, J. & May, R. (1982). On the constituency of infinitives. Lg 58. 116–143.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1970). English as a VSO language. Lg 46. 286–299.Google Scholar
Moortgat, M. (1980). Conditions on rules in lexical grammar. In Gerritsen, M. & Daalder, S. (eds), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1980.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K. (1981). Languages with object before subject: a comment and a catalogue. Linguistics 19. 147–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, G. K. (1982). Letter. Linguistics 20. 339–344.Google Scholar