Abstract:Controlled null subjects (PRO) are semantically bound variables that bear morphological features. In certain environments of partial control, the morphological φ-features (specifically, [person]) and the semantic value of PRO diverge. A natural explanation of the fact that the [person] feature of PRO is uninterpreted is that it is assigned at PF. Given that this feature participates in agreement relations, we conclude that agreement must be (optionally or exclusively) a PF phenomenon.
“…In particular, Landau proposes that partial control comes about via an associative morpheme “AM” (following Madigan ) that affixes to v, so that the relevant portion of (20) has the structure indicated in (21) (see Landau :99). A question that Landau () recognizes but explicitly abstracts away from is why some control predicates enable partial control but others do not. In the context of the AM approach to partial control, this means asking: what principles constrain the distribution of AM?…”
Section: The Group‐operator Analysis Of Partial Controlmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the context of the AM approach to partial control, this means asking: what principles constrain the distribution of AM? See Landau :n. 14 for an extensive list of previous works that deal with the distribution of partial control; here and in what follows I will not be concerned with this question. …”
Section: The Group‐operator Analysis Of Partial Controlmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Landau () asks a basic question about the architecture of grammar: Does agreement apply in the (pre–Phonological Form [PF]) syntactic component of the grammar, thereby possibly having syntactic and semantic effects? Or does agreement apply in the PF component of the grammar and thereby necessarily fail to have syntactic or semantic effects?…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, Bhatt & Walkow () show that agreement in Hindi is sometimes sensitive to linear rather than structural proximity and therefore argue that agreement sometimes occurs postsyntactically when certain conditions are met. Landau (:80–81) acknowledges this possibility but states that “as long as the more restrictive options have not been proven false beyond reasonable doubt [i.e., the options wherein agreement is either always syntactic or always at PF/postsyntactic], they are to be preferred over the ‘anywhere’ alternative on restrictiveness grounds (i.e., they generate stronger predictions).”…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Against this backdrop, Landau (2016:81) proposes to lend support for the PF view of agreement by presenting what he calls “decisive evidence.” The evidence in question comes from person mismatches in partial control. I begin with a logical reconstruction of the overall shape of Landau's argument as I understand it (parenthesized page numbers refer to the place in Landau where the relevant premise or conclusion can be found or in some cases inferred):…”
Landau (2016b) draws on data from person mismatches in partial control to argue that agreement is (at least sometimes) a PF (Phonological Form) phenomenon. The argument depends in part on the premise that there is a reading of sentences such as They wanted to prepare themselves and then meet for debate that corresponds to a structure in which the VP meet for debate has a controlled PRO subject that is semantically first‐person but morphologically third‐person. I argue that according to Landau's own assumptions, PRO in such sentences is not semantically first‐person at any level of representation: Landau's premise relies on a problematic conflation between PRO and the output obtained by applying the group operator to PRO in Landau's approach to partial control. Consequently, Landau's argument for the PF status of agreement does not go through.
“…In particular, Landau proposes that partial control comes about via an associative morpheme “AM” (following Madigan ) that affixes to v, so that the relevant portion of (20) has the structure indicated in (21) (see Landau :99). A question that Landau () recognizes but explicitly abstracts away from is why some control predicates enable partial control but others do not. In the context of the AM approach to partial control, this means asking: what principles constrain the distribution of AM?…”
Section: The Group‐operator Analysis Of Partial Controlmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the context of the AM approach to partial control, this means asking: what principles constrain the distribution of AM? See Landau :n. 14 for an extensive list of previous works that deal with the distribution of partial control; here and in what follows I will not be concerned with this question. …”
Section: The Group‐operator Analysis Of Partial Controlmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Landau () asks a basic question about the architecture of grammar: Does agreement apply in the (pre–Phonological Form [PF]) syntactic component of the grammar, thereby possibly having syntactic and semantic effects? Or does agreement apply in the PF component of the grammar and thereby necessarily fail to have syntactic or semantic effects?…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, Bhatt & Walkow () show that agreement in Hindi is sometimes sensitive to linear rather than structural proximity and therefore argue that agreement sometimes occurs postsyntactically when certain conditions are met. Landau (:80–81) acknowledges this possibility but states that “as long as the more restrictive options have not been proven false beyond reasonable doubt [i.e., the options wherein agreement is either always syntactic or always at PF/postsyntactic], they are to be preferred over the ‘anywhere’ alternative on restrictiveness grounds (i.e., they generate stronger predictions).”…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Against this backdrop, Landau (2016:81) proposes to lend support for the PF view of agreement by presenting what he calls “decisive evidence.” The evidence in question comes from person mismatches in partial control. I begin with a logical reconstruction of the overall shape of Landau's argument as I understand it (parenthesized page numbers refer to the place in Landau where the relevant premise or conclusion can be found or in some cases inferred):…”
Landau (2016b) draws on data from person mismatches in partial control to argue that agreement is (at least sometimes) a PF (Phonological Form) phenomenon. The argument depends in part on the premise that there is a reading of sentences such as They wanted to prepare themselves and then meet for debate that corresponds to a structure in which the VP meet for debate has a controlled PRO subject that is semantically first‐person but morphologically third‐person. I argue that according to Landau's own assumptions, PRO in such sentences is not semantically first‐person at any level of representation: Landau's premise relies on a problematic conflation between PRO and the output obtained by applying the group operator to PRO in Landau's approach to partial control. Consequently, Landau's argument for the PF status of agreement does not go through.
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.
