No abstract
Reference to non-overt arguments has been made in the description of a wide range of syntactic phenomena. Some of them (PRO, pro, A/A ¼ -traces) are relatively well-understood and there exists a certain consensus regarding their analysis. There is another class of non-overt arguments, often referred to as implicit arguments, for which no such consensus prevails. Implicit arguments do not seem to form a unified class. To appreciate this let us examine some cases which have been argued to involve implicit arguments. (1) Implicit agents of passives (vs. middles and unnacusatives) a. This ship was sunk [PRO to collect the insurance]. (Passive) b. # This ship sank [PRO to collect the insurance]. (Unaccusative) c. *This ship sinks easily [PRO to collect the insurance]. (Middle) (2) Benefactive arguments of adjectives (from Roeper (1987)) a. It is necessary/*inevitable [PRO to go]. b. It is wise/*probable [PRO to go]. (3) The bearer of the obligation of a deontic modal a. The books can be sold [without PRO reading them]. (from Chomsky (1982) via Williams (1985)) b. *The books might have been sold [without PRO reading them]. (from Kratzer (1991))i. a. John ran ( ËÓÙÖ from the house) ( Ó Ð to the store) ( È Ø along the river). b. John cut the salami ( ÁÒ×ØÖÙÑ ÒØ with a knife).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.