John Benjamins Publishing Company
Raising from a Tensed Clause and Linguistic Theory
Abstract
In Maithili there exists a rule which is analogous to the Subject-to-Subject Raising rule in English. This rule is interesting because it raises the subject of a tensed embedded clause, whereas the Subject-to-Subject Raising rule raises to the matrix subject position the subject of a tenseless embedded clause. The DPtrace in the former case apparently violates one of the principles of Universal Grammar, namely, the binding principle for anaphors, proposed in Chomsky (1981,1995), since it is not bound in its governing category. We demonstrate, however, that the DP-trace does obey the binding principle. What is required here is to investigate this phenomenon from the perspective of the parametric variation that distinguishes Maithili-type languages from English-type languages. This article consists of four main Sections. In Section 1, we analyze the raising construction in Maithili. We also look into the rule of i-insertion, which optionally applies to fill the empty subject position of the matrix IP, in case Subject-to-Subject Raising does not apply. In Section 2, we present evidence in support of the rule of Subject-to-Subject Raising in Maithili. Section 3 shows how the stipulation of this rule complies with the theta-criterion, proposed in Chomsky (1981). Section 4 is addressed to the detailed analysis of the binding relation that holds between a DP-trace and its antecedent. In this part, we argue that INFL in Maithili, unlike in English-type languages, is generated inside V and does not govern the subject DP. The subject DP is rather governed and Case-marked by the preceding COMP, though it does not happen in raising constructions, since we assume that a raising verb may optionally trigger CPdeletion. We also show that in Maithili-type languages the notion of ‘governing category’ must dispense with “accessible SUBJECT”, since AGR in these languages cannot be treated as accessible SUBJECT. Finally, we show how binding principle (A) holds for the antecedent/DP-trace relation in Maithili.
Abstract
In Maithili there exists a rule which is analogous to the Subject-to-Subject Raising rule in English. This rule is interesting because it raises the subject of a tensed embedded clause, whereas the Subject-to-Subject Raising rule raises to the matrix subject position the subject of a tenseless embedded clause. The DPtrace in the former case apparently violates one of the principles of Universal Grammar, namely, the binding principle for anaphors, proposed in Chomsky (1981,1995), since it is not bound in its governing category. We demonstrate, however, that the DP-trace does obey the binding principle. What is required here is to investigate this phenomenon from the perspective of the parametric variation that distinguishes Maithili-type languages from English-type languages. This article consists of four main Sections. In Section 1, we analyze the raising construction in Maithili. We also look into the rule of i-insertion, which optionally applies to fill the empty subject position of the matrix IP, in case Subject-to-Subject Raising does not apply. In Section 2, we present evidence in support of the rule of Subject-to-Subject Raising in Maithili. Section 3 shows how the stipulation of this rule complies with the theta-criterion, proposed in Chomsky (1981). Section 4 is addressed to the detailed analysis of the binding relation that holds between a DP-trace and its antecedent. In this part, we argue that INFL in Maithili, unlike in English-type languages, is generated inside V and does not govern the subject DP. The subject DP is rather governed and Case-marked by the preceding COMP, though it does not happen in raising constructions, since we assume that a raising verb may optionally trigger CPdeletion. We also show that in Maithili-type languages the notion of ‘governing category’ must dispense with “accessible SUBJECT”, since AGR in these languages cannot be treated as accessible SUBJECT. Finally, we show how binding principle (A) holds for the antecedent/DP-trace relation in Maithili.
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- Acknowledgements ix
- Introduction 1
-
Clause Structure
- What is ‘Argument Sharing’? 15
- Pseudoclefts 29
- The Cleft Question and the Question of Cleft 41
- Clausal Pied-piping and Subjacency 53
-
Modification in DP
- On the Syntax of Quantity in English 73
-
Binding
- Coreference Violations ‘Beyond Principle B’ 109
- Perspectives on Binding 127
- Raising from a Tensed Clause and Linguistic Theory 143
-
Complementizers and Complementation
- The Ubiquitous Complementizer 163
- Word Order, Parameters, and the Extended COMP Projection 175
- The Particle ne in Direct yes-no Questions 199
-
Phonology
- Underspecification and the Phonology of *NC̥-Effects in Malayalam 217
- The Disyllabic Word Minimum 237
- Writing Systems and Phonological Awareness 249
- List of contributors 267
- Bibliography of K.A. Jayaseelan 271
- Index of names 275
- Index of languages 279
- Index of topics 281
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- Acknowledgements ix
- Introduction 1
-
Clause Structure
- What is ‘Argument Sharing’? 15
- Pseudoclefts 29
- The Cleft Question and the Question of Cleft 41
- Clausal Pied-piping and Subjacency 53
-
Modification in DP
- On the Syntax of Quantity in English 73
-
Binding
- Coreference Violations ‘Beyond Principle B’ 109
- Perspectives on Binding 127
- Raising from a Tensed Clause and Linguistic Theory 143
-
Complementizers and Complementation
- The Ubiquitous Complementizer 163
- Word Order, Parameters, and the Extended COMP Projection 175
- The Particle ne in Direct yes-no Questions 199
-
Phonology
- Underspecification and the Phonology of *NC̥-Effects in Malayalam 217
- The Disyllabic Word Minimum 237
- Writing Systems and Phonological Awareness 249
- List of contributors 267
- Bibliography of K.A. Jayaseelan 271
- Index of names 275
- Index of languages 279
- Index of topics 281
