16.508, Review: Syntax: Davies & Dubinsky (2004)

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-16-508. Sat Feb 19 2005. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 16.508, Review: Syntax: Davies & Dubinsky (2004)

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org) 
        Sheila Collberg, U of Arizona  
        Terry Langendoen, U of Arizona  

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Naomi Ogasawara <naomi at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our 
Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and 
interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially 
invited to join in. If you are interested in leading a book 
discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available 
for review." Then contact Sheila Collberg at collberg at linguistlist.org. 

===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 16-Feb-2005
From: Aroldo Andrade < aroldola at ig.com.br >
Subject: The Grammar of Raising and Control 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 13:29:19
From: Aroldo Andrade < aroldola at ig.com.br >
Subject: The Grammar of Raising and Control 
 

AUTHORS: Davies, William D.; Dubinsky, Stanley
TITLE: The Grammar of Raising and Control
SUBTITLE: A Course in Syntactic Argumentation
PUBLISHER: Blackwell Publishing
YEAR: 2004
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/15/15-2748.html


Aroldo L. Andrade, unaffiliated scholar

DESCRIPTION

This book results from the creative idea of explaining the development of 
syntactic theory with a focus on raising and control, a suitable choice as 
those constructions have been in the limelight of generative grammar since 
its beginnings. It includes six readings drawn from the literature. These 
are accompanied by basic explanations and discussions in order to help 
students to understand the proposals and some related problems. 

The book consists of four units, following the major modifications in 
Chomskyan thinking. Each unit includes two to five chapters, one of those 
with a summary of the main assumptions laid out with the different models/ 
research programs.

Unit I shows the development of Raising and Control in the framework of 
Classic Transformational Grammar. Chapter 1 presents some tests used to 
distinguish the constructions and a discussion about their validity. A 
taste of Standard Theory is provided in chapter 2, together with the 
initial accounts on the constructions, with special attention to 
Rosenbaum's (1967) proposal and the responses to it. 

Chapter 3 discusses Postal's (1974) text "On Raising". Besides, the 
authors present evidence in favor of a raising analysis from other 
languages, helping to build an empirical basis for the discussion. Chapter 
4 presents Chomsky's contribution to the topic, based on the Extended 
Standard Theory, where he dismisses a movement account for Raising to 
Object as unnecessary. One of the developments that paved the way to this 
change is a broader notion of governing category, allowing the binding of 
reflexives outside the embedded clause provided that no condition is 
violated. 

In chapter 5 the debates around Postal's proposal are reviewed. The tacit 
conclusion derived from the offered evaluations is that both empirical 
arguments and the clear spell-out of proposals are crucial in building a 
solid argument. The relation between Bach (1977) and other non-
derivational accounts of Raising and Control (for instance, in Lexical-
Functional Grammar) clarifies the assumptions behind a semantic-based 
explanation and its consequences, such as the unification of the focused 
constructions in syntactic terms. 

Unit II goes on with the controversy between Postal and Chomsky. The 
diversion introduced earlier turns into theories with salient differences. 
Chapter 6 includes a reading from Perlmutter and Postal (1983 [1972]) in 
which a sharper rendering of previous ideas by Postal is presented in the 
form of the Relational Succession Law. The text is evaluated and the 
general assumptions of Relational Grammar are explained. 

In chapter 7 Revised Extended Standard Theory is discussed. The tendency 
to generalize conditions to the maximum is maintained and, as a 
consequence, control is assigned a place among the rules of construal that 
apply from Surface Structure to Logical Form. The comments on the reading 
from Chomsky and Lasnik (1977) stress the notion of obligatory control 
showing up in infinitival complements to control verbs, among other cases. 
The rule of Equi-Nominal Phrase (Equi-NP) deletion targets embedded 
subjects of verbs such as "want", so that the principle of obligatory 
control is maintained. 

Unit III is dedicated to Government and Binding Theory (GB), another stage 
of Chomsky's theorizing. In this stage, conditions on representations are 
grouped into coherent modules responsible for filtering derivations. 
Chapter 8 summarizes the basic assumptions of GB, and the modifications 
regarding Raising and Control are summarized. In particular, the analysis 
of Raising to Object (RtoO) is improved to accommodate the assignment of 
objective Case by verbs like "believe". This phenomenon is referred to as 
Exceptional Case Marking (ECM) and is allowed by a rule of S'-deletion 
(which was reinterpreted as a Complementizer Phrase (CP) deletion with 
raising verbs, when the theory on functional categories was developed, by 
the mid-1980's). 

Chapter 9 presents some discussion of the ECM account. First of all, there 
is a review of Kayne's (1981) text in which properties of prepositional 
and empty complementizers in English and French are compared. After this, 
a reading from Cole and Hermon (1981) revives the discussion on the 
necessity of a movement account in RtoO. One evidence for this is the 
existence of tensed inflection in embedded clauses of Imbabura Quechua, 
creating a problem for Case Theory, as assignment of both accusative (by 
ECM) and nominative by (Specifier-Head agreement) would be possible. 
However the movement approach is ruled out in GB by the stipulation that 
all complement positions are theta-positions, thus violating the theta-
criterion. An alternative proposal consistent with the ECM account is 
entertained as well. 

Chapter 10 contains a look into purportedly raising constructions in some 
Austronesian and Philippine languages and in Japanese as an attempt to 
explore the general success of an ECM account. For instance, it is 
concluded that languages such as Madurese have inconsistent data with a 
RtoO analysis, since (i) the targets of raising are not exclusively 
subjects and (ii) embedded coreferent pronouns are possible (commonly 
referred to as "copy raising"), among other reasons. Therefore, the 
authors state, a "prolepsis" analysis would be more suitable, provided 
that one considers the licensing of null pronouns. Data is shown from 
Tagalog and Cebuano that is similar to those from Madurese. Japanese data 
is discussed first by differentiating the cases of RtoO from those of 
Object Control. The exceptional properties of its RtoO constructions are 
then presented, followed by some analyses that question Kuno's (1976) 
seminal account. The singular features of the Japanese construction 
include (i) finiteness in the embedded clause and case alternation in the 
candidate for raising; (ii) phrases marked with the expression "no koto" 
(="matter of"), only licensed with the accusative marking, and (iii) the 
alleged impossibility of direct passives in the Japanese RtoO 
construction - in those cases Kuno assumes that only an Adversity Passive 
is possible.

Unit IV describes the rise of the Minimalist Program and its consequences. 
Chapter 11 presents a detailed description of the evolution of the notion 
phrase structure, including the representation of subjects and functional 
projections, specifically those related to Agreement. Besides, it includes 
a succinct section on the Minimalist Program model followed by a 
clarifying discussion about the consequences of adopting concepts like 
Bare Phrase Structure and the restriction on the proliferation of 
functional categories.  

Chapter 12 comments on the return to older analyses made possible by some 
assumptions taken on the minimalist framework. Neo-RtoO is exemplified 
with a reading by Lasnik & Saito (1991), in which the embedded subject in 
raising constructions is moved to the Specifier of the Object Agreement 
Phrase (Spec, AgrOP). In addition, a review of Runner (1995) is presented, 
in which it is discussed whether that movement occurs overtly or covertly. 
Bruening (2001) is presented as a neo-ECM account designed for languages 
that show a finite complement in apparent RtoO structures. Raising in 
Japanese is again considered in the light of more recent accounts.

Chapter 13 takes the issue of separation/unification of Raising and 
Control that appeared in the more recent literature. The authors remind us 
that earlier Chomskyan theory assumes that the structural differences 
between both constructions are based on assumptions about the relation 
between Deep Structure and Semantic interpretation. It recalls that some 
accounts outside the Chomskyan framework in the 1970's had already come up 
with the idea of a syntactic unification of raising and control. Here, the 
presentation of the assumptions regarding the mapping from semantic roles 
to syntactic argument positions are illuminating. Hornstein's (1999) 
account is shown as a rejection to the problems involved with the 
licensing of PRO, the null complement subject of control verbs. Hornstein 
analyzes control as a kind of raising. Finally, some criticisms to the 
notion of control as movement are taken into account. The final section 
warns those researchers interested in raising and control about the great 
variety of empirical evidence that must be tackled if a good proposal is 
to be made.

CRITICAL EVALUATION

The book offers an overview of the generative enterprise. In this sense, 
it has many advantages over other manuals on syntax that concentrate only 
on the Government and Binding Theory and/or the Minimalism Program because 
it helps one to track the emergence of some concepts, such as Principles 
and Parameters. Given the rapid pace of change in the theory of grammar 
nowadays, this knowledge is crucial so that students can have a solid 
basis on which to judge the analyses available, which are legion in some 
areas. Despite the authors' care, the book deals with a very difficult 
problem and should not be recommended for readers without some training on 
syntax.  

Davies and Dubinsky adopt a balanced position towards non-MIT-oriented 
approaches, although these do not occupy most of their attention. The 
possibility of looking outside the mainstream of generative linguistics 
allows them to make useful comments on new proposals, especially those who 
claim to be minimalist. Indeed, it is shown that, in most cases, new 
accounts do not bring much novelty at all, being the result of 
terminological variation and/or the revival of already existent accounts. 
The ability of "theory-translation" (using the authors' words) is not 
easily obtained by beginners. One of the main qualities of this book is to 
direct the readers' attention to such problems. Indeed, the evaluation of 
proposals probably composes the core of the book, helping develop a sense 
of self-criticism by the readers.

The book would better attain its goal as a manual on syntax if it included 
some exercises, especially with data not restricted to English. Besides 
those already included in the book, other interesting facts on control can 
be found in Portuguese tensed infinitives. As Rabelo (2004) points out, in 
a similar fashion to Raposo (1989), the behavior of tensed infinitives is 
consistent with a control analysis as long as PRO is substituted by pro 
(the empty option of a pronominal). This is necessary given the 
possibility of substituting the null element by overt NPs in control 
contexts:


(1) Os   pais      da     Maria admitiram morarem  (eles) nos    EUA
    The  parents   of.the Maria admitted  live.3pl (they) in.the USA
    'Maria's parents admitted to living in the USA'


Besides, languages not using infinitives in those contexts (as Greek) and 
those with serial verb constructions (as Thai) present interesting data to 
be used in class. Notwithstanding this possibility, the authors 
demonstrate great concern about the interplay of data and theory. For 
example, it is pointed that the necessity of distinct accounts for Raising 
to Subject and Raising to Object is centered in theory-internal reasons.  

The order of presentation of the texts is generally clear, with one 
exception: the positioning of Postal's (1974) text. Although supporting a 
Standard Theory approach to syntax, Postal's raising analysis is a 
rejection of Chomsky's (1973) text, and would be better included after 
Chomsky's proposal. 

Another issue that raises doubt concerns the reinterpretation of ECM in 
the Minimalist framework. The authors do not explain why an ECM account is 
dismissed at this stage of the theory (because of the abandonment of the 
notion government). Regarding the same issue, it is not clear how the  neo-
ECM analysis in Bruening (2001) is possible given that assumption.

Apart from these minor remarks, the book must be recognized as a 
contribution to the study of Raising and Control. It includes valuable 
discussions presented in a clear and innovative style. It is worth 
recommending.

REFERENCES

Bach, Emmon. (1977) Review article on Postal, On raising: One rule of 
English grammar and its theoretical implications. Language 53.621-54.

Bruening (2001) Syntax at the edge: Cross-clausal phenomena and the syntax 
of Passamaquoddy. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Chomsky, Noam. (1973) Conditions on transformations. In Stephen Anderson 
and Paul Kiparsky, eds., A festschrift for Morris Halle, 232-86. New York: 
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik. (1977) Filters and Control. Linguistic 
Inquiry 8.425-504.

Cole, Peter, and Gabriella Hermon. (1981) Subjecthood and islandhood: 
evidence from Quechua. Linguistic Inquiry 12.1-30.

Hornstein, Norbert. (1999) Movement and Control. Linguistic Inquiry 30.69-
96.

Kayne, Richard. (1981) On certain differences between French and English. 
Linguistic Inquiry 12.349-71. 

Kuno, Susumu. (1976) Subject Raising. In Masayoshi Shibatani, ed., Syntax 
and Semantics 5: Japanese Generative Grammar, 17-49. New York, Academic 
Press. Revised version of 1972. Subject Raising in Japanese. Papers in 
Japanese Linguistics 1.1.

Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito. (1991) On the subject of infinitives. 
Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 27.324-43.

Perlmutter, David M., and Paul M. Postal. (1983 [1972]) The Relational 
Succession Law. In David M. Perlmutter, ed., Studies in relational grammar 
1, 30-80. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Postal, Paul M. (1974) On Raising: One rule of English grammar and its 
theoretical implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Rabelo, Poliana C. (2004) Sobre a questão do controle com o infinitivo 
flexionado português. MA dissertation, University of Brasilia.

Raposo, Eduardo. (1989) Propositional infinitival constructions in 
European Portuguese. In: Jaeggli, Osvaldo & Kenneth J. Safir (eds.), The 
Null Subject Parameter. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Rosenbaum, Peter S. (1967) The grammar of English predicate complement 
constructions. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.

Runner, Jeffrey T. (1995) Noun phrase licensing and interpretation. PhD 
dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Aroldo Andrade has research interests in syntax, morphology and historical 
linguistics. His MA dissertation deals with causative alternation and 
partial agreement of unaccusative constructions in Brazilian Portuguese. 
He is presently researching the syntax of infinitive constructions in the 
diachrony of Portuguese.





-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-16-508