Das Allgemeine im Besonderen – Mechanismen der Obligatorischen Kontrolle am Beispiel des Deutschen

• Authors: Aptacy Jarosław

Title variants

EN

General in particular – mechanisms of obligatory control on the example of German

• Languages of publication: DE

Abstracts

EN

The aim of this article is to show which generative mechanisms are responsible for establishing a control relationship between syntactic structures. As a theoretical basis, the Movement Theory of Control by Hornstein was chosen because it has already been tested in numerous languages and has universal character. Its applicability was exemplified by some data of subject and object control in German. For this purpose, some derivations have been outlined. In addition, difficulties that this theory encounters were pointed out. For example, in the derivation of subject control over object, as it exists in the case of promise-verbs.

Keywords

EN

Movement Theory of Control; German; Subject- and Object Control; Universal Grammar

• Publisher: Oficyna Wydawnicza ATUT – Wrocławskie Wydawnictwo Oświatowe
• Journal: Beiträge zur allgemeinen und vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft
• Year: 2019
• Issue: 8
• Pages: 7-28

Contributors

author

Aptacy Jarosław

• Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza, Poznań, Polen

References

• Alexiadou Artemis / Anagnostopoulou Elena / Iordăchioaia Gianina / Marchis Mihaela, 2010, No objections to Backward Control, in: Hornstein N./Polinsky M. (Hrsg.), Movement Theory of Control, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, S. 89-117.
• Aptacy Jarosław, 2013, Zu Kontrolltypen aus kontrastiver Sicht: eine deutschpolnische Studie, in: Studia Linguistica 32, S. 19-32.
• Aptacy Jarosław, 2019, Ausgewählte Aspekte der Infinitivkomplementierung aus sprachvergleichender Sicht. Eine minimalistische Studie, Poznań. Online: https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/handle/10593/24501.
• Boeckx Cedric, 2006, Linguistic Minimalism. Origins, Concepts, Methods, and Aims, Oxford.
• Boeckx Cedric, 2008, Bare Syntax, Oxford.
• Boeckx Cedric / Hornstein Norbert, 2006, The Virtus of Control as Movement, in: Syntax 9, S. 118-130.
• Bußmann Hadumod (Hrsg.), 32002, Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft, Stuttgart.
• Chomsky Noam A., 2000, Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework, in: Martin R./ Michaels D./Uriagereka J. (Hrsg.), Step by Step. Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Cambridge MA, S. 89-155.
• Chomsky Noam A., 2005, Three Factors in Language Design, in: Linguistic Inquiry 36, S. 1-22.
• Chomsky Noam A., 2013, Problems of projection, in: Lingua 130, S. 33-49.
• Citko Barbara, 2011, Symmetry in Syntax. Merge, Move and Labels, Cambridge.
• Collins Chris, 2002, Eliminating Labels, in: Epstein S. D./Seely T. D. (Hrsg.), Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, Malden MA/Oxford, S. 42-64.
• Cormack Annabel, 2006, Dative interveners, in: Lingua 116, S. 1580-1594.
• Courtenay Karen, 1998, Summary: Subject control verb PROMISE in English. Online: https://linguistlist.org/issues/9/9-651.html (11.02.2019).
• Culicover Peter / Jackendoff Ray, 2001, Control is not movement, in: Linguistic Inquiry 32, S. 493-512.
• Fanselow Gisbert, 2001, Features, Theta-Roles and Free Constituent Order, in: Linguistic Inquiry 32, S. 405-437.
• Fox Danny, 2002, Antecedent-Contained Deletion and the Copy Theory of Movement, in: Linguistic Inquiry 33, S. 63-96.
• Freidin Robert, 2012, Syntax: Basic Concepts and Applications, Cambridge.
• Fujii Tomohiro, 2010, Split control and the Principle of Minimal Distance, in: Polinsky M./Hornstein N. (Hrsg.), Movement Theory of Control, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, S. 211-244.
• Grewendorf Günther, 2002, Minimalistische Syntax, Tübingen/Basel.
• Grewendorf Günther, 2006, Noam Chomsky, München.
• Hornstein Norbert, 2003, On Control, in: Randall H. (Hrsg.), Minimalist syntax, Malden MA, S. 6-81.
• Hornstein Norbert, 2009, A Theory of Syntax. Minimal Operations and Universal Grammar, Cambridge.
• Hornstein Norbert / Polinsky Maria, 2010, Control as movement: Across languages and constructions, in: Hornstein N./Polinsky M. (Hrsg.), Movement Theory of Control, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, S. 1-41.
• Kayne Richard S., 1994, The Antisymmetry of Syntax, Cambridge MA.
• Landau Idan, 2000, Elements of Control. Structure and Meaning in Infinitival Constructions, Dordrecht/Boston/London.
• Landau Idan, 2008, Movement-resistant aspects of Control, in: Davies W./Dubinsky S. (Hrsg.), New horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising, Dordrecht, S. 293-325.
• Landau Idan, 2013, Control in Generative Grammar. A Research Companion, Cambridge.
• Larson Richard K., 1988, On the Double Object Construction, in: Linguistic Inquiry 19, S. 335-392.
• Linke Angelika / Nussbaumer Markus / Portmann Paul R., 52004, Studienbuch Linguistik, Tübingen.
• Madigan Sean, 2008, Obligatory Split Control into Exhortative Complements in Korean, in: Lingusitic Inquiry 39, S. 493-502.
• Moro Andrea, 2000, Dynamic Antisymmetry, Cambridge MA.
• Nunes Jairo, 2004, Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement, Cambridge MA.
• Rizzi Luigi, 2013, Locality, in: Lingua 130, S. 169-186.
• Rodrigues Cilene, 2007, Agreement and flotation in Partial and Inverse Partial Control configurations, in: Davies W. D./Dubinsky S. (Hrsg.), New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising, Dordrecht, S. 213-229.
• Snarska Anna, 2008, Partial Control is Trickier than we Thought, in: Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 44, S. 345-361.
• Williams Edwin, 1980, Predication, in: Linguistic Inquiry 11, S. 203-238.
• Witkoś Jacek, 2013, Minimality in Polish Control: Late Merge and Smuggling, in: Junghanns U./Fehrmann D./Lenertova D./Pitsch H. (Hrsg.), Formal Description of Slavic Languages: the Ninth Conference. Proceedings of FDSL 9, Göttingen 2011, Frankfurt a.M., S. 349-375.
• Wood Jim, 2017, Icelandic Object Extraposition Is Still a Problem for the Movement Theory of Control: A Reply to Drummond and Hornstein, in: Linguistic Inquiry 48, S. 513-527.
• Wurmbrand Susi, 2003, Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure, Berlin.

Identifiers

DOI

10.23817/bzspr.8-1