Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:01:07.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Not all obligatory control is movement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2020

FYODOR BAYKOV Open the ORCID record for FYODOR BAYKOV [Opens in a new window]  and
PAVEL RUDNEV Open the ORCID record for PAVEL RUDNEV [Opens in a new window]
FYODOR BAYKOV*
Affiliation:
National Research University Higher School of Economics
PAVEL RUDNEV
Affiliation:
National Research University Higher School of Economics
*
Authors’ addresses: National Research University Higher School of Economics, Faculty of Humanities, Staraya Basmannaya Ulitsa 21/4, Moscow, Russiabaykov3105@mail.rupasha.rudnev@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This squib presents two challenges for the analysis of promise-type verbs within the Movement Theory of Control. We show that the objects of these verbs in Russian are not prepositional and are incorrectly predicted to be legitimate controllers. We also argue against analysing oblique control as movement.

Keywords

obligatory controlmovementRussian
Type
SQUIB
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 56 , Issue 4 , November 2020 , pp. 893 - 906
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Footnotes

Our thanks to Alexander Letuchiy, Serge Minor and Anna Volkova for discussion and to the editors and anonymous reviewers of this journal for their comments and suggestions. The present study was implemented within the framework of the Basic Research Programme at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE University) in 2020.

References

Abels, Klaus. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. University of Connecticut dissertation.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric, Hornstein, Norbert & Nunes, Jairo. 2010a. Control as movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric, Hornstein, Norbert & Nunes, Jairo. 2010b. Icelandic control really is A-movement: Reply to Bobaljik and Landau. Linguistic Inquiry 41.1, 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burukina, Irina. 2019. Russian verbs of order and permission: between obligatory control and ECM. Unpublished ms.Google Scholar
Chvany, Catherine V. 1982. Hierarchies in the Russian case system: For N-A-G-P-D-I, against N-G-D-A-I-P. Russian Language Journal 36.125, 133–147.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1974. The second dative: A transformational approach. In Brecht, Richard & Chvany, Catherine (eds.), Slavic transformational syntax, 123–150. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Grano, Thomas. 2015. Control and restructuring. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Green, Jeffrey J. 2019. A movement theory of adjunct control. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4.1, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hill, Steven P. 1977. The n-factor and Russian prepositions: Their development in 11th–20th century texts. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine & Sichel, Ivy. 2011. Negative DPs, A-movement, and scope diminishment. Linguistic Inquiry 42.4, 595–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 25). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2007. Movement-resistant aspects of control. In Davies, William & Dubinsky, Stanley (eds.), New horizons in the analysis of control and raising, 293–325. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2008. Two routes of control: evidence from case transmission in Russian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26, 877–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2013. Control in generative grammar: A research companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2015. A two-tiered theory of control. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2000. Monotonicity-based versus veridicality-based approaches to negative polarity: Evidence from Russian. In Halloway King, T. & Sekerina, I. A. (eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The Philadelphia meeting 1999, 328–346. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publishers.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2008. Russian nibud’-series as markers of co-variation. In Abner, N. & Bishop, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 27, 370–378. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Philippova, Tatiana. 2018. Prepositional repercussions in Russian: Pronouns, comparatives and ellipsis: Ben Gurion University of the Negev dissertation.Google Scholar
Rappaport, Gilbert C. 1986. On anaphor binding in Russian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 4.1, 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. 2001. On the nature of default case. Syntax 4.3, 205–238.Google Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle. 2014. Portuguese, Russian and the theory of control. In Huang, H., Poole, E. & Rysling, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 43), vol. 2, 115–126.Google Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle. 2018. On the difference between exhaustive and partial control. In Cognola, Federica & Casalicchio, Jan (eds.), Null subjects in generative grammar. A synchronic and diachronic perspective, 141–170. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 2010. Menace under the microscope. In Zwart, Jan-Wouter & de Vries, Mark (eds.), Structure preserved, 329–339. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 2018. Strict and non-strict negative concord in Hungarian: A unified analysis. Boundaries crossed, at the interfaces of morphosyntax, phonology, pragmatics and semantics, 227–242. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 2004. A reference grammar of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Truswell, Robert. 2013. Reconstruction, control, and movement. In Folli, Raffaella, Sevdali, Christina & Truswell, Robert (eds.), Syntax and its limits, 44–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Witkoś, Jacek. 2012. The syntax of subject control across an object: on the limitations of the silent PP hypothesis. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 48.3, 519–536.Google Scholar