Proleptic PPs are arguments: consequences for the argument/adjunct distinction and for selectional switch

References

Adger, David, Alex Drummond, David Hall & Coppe van Urk. 2017. Is there Condition C reconstruction? In Andrew Lamont & Katerina Tetzloff (eds.), Proceedings of North East Linguistic Society, vol. 47, 21–31. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst Graduate Linguistics Student Association.Search in Google Scholar

Alboiu, Gabriela & Virginia Hill. 2016. Evidentiality and raising to object as A′-movement: A Romanian case study. Syntax 19(3). 256–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12123.Search in Google Scholar

Bianchi, Valentina. 1999. Consequences of antisymmetry: Headed relative clauses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110803372Search in Google Scholar

Borer, Hagit. 2005a. In name only. Structuring sense, vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263905.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Borer, Hagit. 2005b. The normal course of events. Structuring sense, vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263929.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Borer, Hagit. 2013. Taking form. Structuring sense, vol. 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263936.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Bošković, Željko. 2002. A-movement and the EPP. Syntax 5(3). 167–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00051.Search in Google Scholar

Bošković, Željko. 2009. On relativization strategies and resumptive pronouns. In Gerhild Zybatow, Uwe Junghanns, Denisa Lenertová & Petr Biskup (eds.), Studies in formal Slavic phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics and information structure: Proceedings of Formal Description of Slavic Languages 7, Leipzig 2007, 79–93.Search in Google Scholar

Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24(4). 591–656.Search in Google Scholar

Bruening, Benjamin. 2009. Selectional asymmetries between CP and DP suggest that the DP hypothesis is wrong. In Laurel MacKenzie (ed.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium (University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 15(1)), 26–35.Search in Google Scholar

Bruening, Benjamin. 2018. CPs move rightward, not leftward. Syntax 21(4). 362–401. https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12164.Search in Google Scholar

Bruening, Benjamin. 2019. Disjunctive selection is necessary for “Hierarchy of Projections” and it accounts for transitivity failures. University of Delaware Manuscript.Search in Google Scholar

Bruening, Benjamin & Eman Al Khalaf. 2019. No argument–adjunct asymmetry in reconstruction for Binding Condition C. Journal of Linguistics 55. 247–276. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226718000324.Search in Google Scholar

Chametzky, Robert A. 1996. A theory of phrase markers and the extended base. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Search in Google Scholar

Chametzky, Robert A. 2000. Phrase structure: From GB to Minimalism. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Chametzky, Robert A. 2008 [2003]. Phrase structure. In RandallHendrick (ed.), Minimalist syntax, 192–226. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470758342.ch5Search in Google Scholar

Chen, Victoria & Shin Fukuda. 2016. Raising to object out of CP as embedded left dislocations: Evidence from three Formosan languages. In Kyeong-min Kim, Pocholo Umbal, Trevor Block, Queenie Chan, Tanie Cheng, Kelli Finney, Mara Katz, Sophie Nickel-Thompson & Lisa Shorten (eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 88–98. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130. 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2015. Problems of projection: Extensions. In Elisa DiDomenico, CorneliaHamann & Simona Matteini (eds.), Structures, strategies, and beyond: Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti, 3–16. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.223.01choSearch in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2020. Puzzles about phases. In Ludovico Franco & Paolo Lorusso (eds.), Linguistic variation: Structure and interpretation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9781501505201-010Search in Google Scholar

Collins, Chris & Edward Stabler. 2016. A formalization of minimalist syntax. Syntax 19(1). 43–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12117.Search in Google Scholar

Davies, William D. 2005. Madurese prolepsis and its implications for a typology of raising. Language 81(3). 645–665. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0121.Search in Google Scholar

De Belder, Marijke & Jeroen van Craenenbroeck. 2015. How to merge a root. Linguistic Inquiry 46(4). 625–655. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00196.Search in Google Scholar

Deal, Amy Rose. 2017. Covert hyperraising to object. In Andrew Lamont & Katerina Tetzloff (eds.), Proceedings of North East Linguistic Society, vol. 47, 257–270. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst Graduate Linguistics Student Association.Search in Google Scholar

Di Sciullo, Anna Maria & DanielaIsac. 2008. The asymmetry of Merge. Biolinguistics 2(4). 260–290.10.5964/bioling.8661Search in Google Scholar

Embick, David & Alec Marantz. 2008. Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39(1). 1–53. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.1.Search in Google Scholar

Flegg, Jill Heather & Ileana Paul. 2003. On the difference between raising and control. In Anastasia Riehl & Thess Savella (eds.), The Proceedings of the Ninth Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 19), 50–63. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistics Club Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Fraser, Bruce. 2001. Consider the lilies: Prolepsis and the development of complementation. Glotta 77. 7–37.Search in Google Scholar

Gluckman, John. 2014. Arguments against late merger. Los Angeles: University of California Manuscript.Search in Google Scholar

Gluckman, John. 2021. The meaning of the tough-construction. Natural Language Semantics 29. 453–499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-021-09181-3.Search in Google Scholar

Goodluck, Helen & Danijela Stojanović. 1996. The structure and acquisition of relative clauses in Serbo-Croatian. Language Acquisition 5(4). 285–315. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la0504_2.Search in Google Scholar

Heck, Fabian & Gereon Müller. 2007. Extremely local optimization. In Erin Bainbridge & Brian Agbayani (eds.), Proceedings of Western Conference on Linguistics, vol. 26, 170–183. Fresno, CA: California State University.Search in Google Scholar

Hedberg, Nancy & Richard C. DeArmond. 2009. On complements and adjuncts. Snippets 19. 11–12.Search in Google Scholar

Henderson, Brent. 2007. Matching and raising unified. Lingua 117. 202–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.12.002.Search in Google Scholar

Hewett, Matthew. 2020. Lexically selected PPs can vary by template in Semitic. University of Chicago Manuscript.Search in Google Scholar

Heycock, Caroline. 1995. Asymmetries in reconstruction. Linguistic Inquiry 26(4). 547–570.Search in Google Scholar

Hladnik, Marko. 2015. Mind the gap: Resumption in Slavic relative clauses. Utrecht: Utrecht University dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Hoeksema, Jack & Ankelien Schippers. 2012. Diachronic changes in long-distance dependencies. In Ans van Kemenade & Nynke de Haas (eds.), Historical Linguistics 2009: Selected Papers from the 19th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Nijmegen, 10–14 August 2009 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 320), 155–170. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.320.08hoeSearch in Google Scholar

Hornstein, Norbert. 2009. A theory of syntax: Minimal operations and Universal Grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511575129Search in Google Scholar

Hornstein, Norbert & Jairo Nunes. 2008. Adjunction, labeling, and bare phrase structure. Biolinguistics 2(1). 57–86.10.5964/bioling.8621Search in Google Scholar

Ingria, Robert. 1981. Sentential complementation in Modern Greek. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Johnson, Kyle. 1991. Object positions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9. 577–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00134751.Search in Google Scholar

Koppen, Marjo van, Lucas Seuren & Mark de Vries. 2016. The proleptic accusative as an exceptional Exceptional Case Marking construction. University of Groningen and Utrecht University Manuscript.Search in Google Scholar

Korsah, Sampson & Andrew Murphy. 2020. Tonal reflexes of movement in Asante Twi. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 38. 827–885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-019-09456-9.Search in Google Scholar

Kotzoglou, George. 2002. Greek ‘ECM’ and how to control it. In Michalis Georgiafentis & Spyridoula Varlokosta (eds.), Reading Working Papers in Linguistics, 6, 39–56. Reading: Department of Applied Linguistics, University of Reading.Search in Google Scholar

Kuno, Susumu. 1973. Constraints on internal clauses and sentential subjects. Linguistic Inquiry 4(3). 363–385.Search in Google Scholar

Kurniawan, Eri. 2011. Does Sundanese have prolepsis and/or raising to object constructions? In Lauren Eby, Clemens, Gregory, Scontras & Maria Polinsky (eds.), Proceedings of the Eighteenth Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association, 66–79.Search in Google Scholar

Kusliy, Petr. 2020. Condition C effects in VP fronting constructions and the mode of semantic composition. In Michael Franke, NikolaKompa, MingyaLiu, Jutta L. Mueller & Juliane Schwab (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 24, 1, 464–481. Osnabrück University.Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George & John Robert Ross. 1966. Criterion for verb phrase constituency. In Anthony G. Oettinger (ed.), Mathematics and automatic translation. NSF-17, vol. II, 1–11.Search in Google Scholar

Landau, Idan. 2007. Constraints on partial VP-fronting. Syntax 10(2). 127–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2007.00099.x.Search in Google Scholar

Lappin, Shalom. 1984. Predication and raising. In Charles Jones & Peter Sells (eds.), Proceedings of North East Linguistic Society, 14, 236–252. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst Graduate Linguistics Student Association.Search in Google Scholar

Larson, B. 2014. Russian comitatives and the ambiguity of adjunction. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 22(1). 11–49. https://doi.org/10.1353/jsl.2014.0004.Search in Google Scholar

Lasnik, Howard & Mamoru Saito. 1991. On the subject of infinitives. In Lise M. Dobrin, Lynn Nichols & Rosa M. Rodriguez (eds.), Papers from the 27th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Part I: The general session, 324–343. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.Search in Google Scholar

Lebeaux, David. 1991. Relative clauses, licensing, and the nature of the derivation. Syntax and Semantics 25. 209–229.10.1163/9789004373198_011Search in Google Scholar

Lebowski, Zach. 2021. CED effects in ascending and descending structures: Evidence from extraction asymmetries. University of Chicago Manuscript.Search in Google Scholar

Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Alexis Dimitriadis, Laura Siegel, Clarissa Surek-Clark & Alexander Williams (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium (University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2)), 201–225. Philadelphia: Penn Linguistics Club, University of Pennsylvania.Search in Google Scholar

Massam, Diane. 1985. Case theory and the projection principle. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Merchant, Jason. 2014. Some definitions. University of Chicago Manuscript.Search in Google Scholar

Merchant, Jason. 2019. Roots don’t select, categorial heads do: Lexical-selection of PPs may vary by category. The Linguistic Review 36(3). 325–341. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2019-2020.Search in Google Scholar

Milway, Daniel. 2021. A parallel derivation theory of adjuncts. Manuscript.10.5964/bioling.9313Search in Google Scholar

Moulton, Keir. 2015. CPs: Copies and compositionality. Linguistic Inquiry 46(2). 305–342. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00183.Search in Google Scholar

Müller, Gereon. 2017. Structure removal: An argument for feature-driven Merge. Glossa 2(1). 1–35.10.5334/gjgl.193Search in Google Scholar

Müller, Gereon. 2018. Structure removal in complex prefields. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36. 219–264.10.1007/s11049-017-9374-zSearch in Google Scholar

Müller, Gereon. 2020. Rethinking restructuring. In András Bárány, Theresa Biberauer, Jamie Douglas & Sten Vikner (eds.), Syntactic architecture and its consequences II: Between syntax and morphology, 149–190. Berlin: Language Science Press.Search in Google Scholar

Murphy, Andrew (ed.). 2019. Structure removal (Linguistische Arbeits Berichte 94). Leipzig: Institut für Linguistik, Leipzig University.Search in Google Scholar

Pesetsky, David. 1991. Zero syntax, vol. 2. Infinitives. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Manuscript.Search in Google Scholar

Pesetsky, David. 2021. Exfoliation: Towards a derivational theory of clause size. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Manuscript.Search in Google Scholar

Postal, Paul M. 1970. On the surface verb ‘remind’. Linguistic Inquiry 1(1). 37–120.Search in Google Scholar

Postal, Paul M. 1974. On raising. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Search in Google Scholar

Rauber, Ross. 2019a. (To me) it seems (to me) (like a mess) (to me) (like a mess). University of Chicago Manuscript.Search in Google Scholar

Rauber, Ross. 2019b. Adjuncts attach differently. University of Chicago Manuscript.Search in Google Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar: A handbook of generative syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7Search in Google Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 2004. Locality and left periphery. In Adriana Belletti (ed.), Structures and beyond (The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 3), 252–286. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195171976.003.0008Search in Google Scholar

Safir, Ken. 1999. Vehicle change and reconstruction in Ā-chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30(4). 587–620. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999554228.Search in Google Scholar

Salzmann, Martin. 2017a. Prolepsis. In Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. 5, 3203–3245. Somerset: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom062Search in Google Scholar

Salzmann, Martin. 2017b. Reconstruction and resumption in indirect A′-dependencies: On the syntax of prolepsis and relativization in (Swiss) German and beyond (Studies in Generative Grammar 117). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9781614512202Search in Google Scholar

Schütze, Carson T. 1995. PP attachment and argumenthood. In Papers on language processing and acquisition (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 26), 95–151.Search in Google Scholar

Sportiche, Dominique. 2017. Relative clauses: Promotion only, in steps. Los Angeles: University of California Manuscript.Search in Google Scholar

Sportiche, Dominique. 2018. Somber prospects for late merger. Linguistic Inquiry 50(2). 416–424.10.1162/ling_a_00306Search in Google Scholar

Stepanov, Arthur. 2001. Late adjunction and minimalist phrase structure. Syntax 4(2). 94–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00038.Search in Google Scholar

Stockwell, Richard, Aya Meltzer-Asscher & Dominique Sportiche. To appear. There is reconstruction for Condition C in English questions. In Proceedings of the 51st annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst Graduate Linguistics Student Association.Search in Google Scholar

Stowell, Tim. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Takano, Yuji. 1995. Predicate fronting and internal subjects. Linguistic Inquiry 26(2). 327–340.Search in Google Scholar

Takano, Yuji. 2003. Nominative objects in Japanese complex predicate constructions: A prolepsis analysis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21. 779–834. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1025545313178.10.1023/A:1025545313178Search in Google Scholar

Toquero-Pérez, Luis Miguel. 2021. Revisiting extraction and subextraction patterns from arguments. Linguistic Variation. Online first.10.1075/lv.20002.toqSearch in Google Scholar

Wexler, Kenneth & Peter Culicover. 1980. Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Search in Google Scholar

Yoon, James H. 2007. Raising of major arguments in Korean and Japanese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25. 615–653. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-007-9020-2.Search in Google Scholar

Zyman, Erik. 2021a. Phase-constrained obligatory late adjunction. Syntax. https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12226.Search in Google Scholar

Zyman, Erik. 2021b. On the definition of Merge. University of Chicago Manuscript.Search in Google Scholar