[Lingtyp] phoric control into dependent verb form

[Peter Austin]

Dear Christian

If it understand you correctly, what you describe (cross-clausal functional control of B or C, not A) would seem to fit Dyirbal and some Austronesian languages (like Balinese and some dialects of Sasak).

Best
Peter


Sent from Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
________________________________
From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of Christian Lehmann via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Sent: Monday, November 4, 2024 8:15:22 PM
To: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Subject: [Lingtyp] phoric control into dependent verb form


Dear specialists in syntax,

I have a question concerning the referential control relation between an argument Nh of a superordinate predication and a zero argument Nd of a dependent predication such that Nh determines the reference of Nd, as in this example:

Johni tried [∅i to introduce Mary to Bill].

As far as I know about this chapter of syntax (which is very little), the zero argument of the dependent predicate whose reference is thus controlled is the subject of the dependent verb, and the latter appears in a non-finite form which is commonly (though not necessarily) an infinitive.

Suppose I have a construction

[ [Nhi]NP Vh [ ∅i XNP Vd-Inf] ]

where the dependent infinitive Vd has a zero argument which is under referential control by some Nh of the matrix clause.

Can I assert that the category of the ∅ must be NP and its function must be subject of Vd?

Putting the question the other way around: Given a configuration

John tried [ A introduce B to C ],

is it possible, in some language, for B or C to be John without adapting the voice or valency of Vd? That is, ‘introduce’ would be an active verb form, though ex hypothesi not an infinitive of the familiar kind, because for these the answer appears to be ‘no’.

Background of my question: Cabecar has two transitive constructions:

1) [NPErg NPAbs V]

2) [ NP1 NP2 V]

Construction 1 is ergative, with the syntactic function of NPErg being marked while NPAbs is a bare NP. In construction 2, both NP1 and NP2 are bare NPs, in fixed order, but lacking marking of their syntactic function. NP2 is not distinguishable from NPAbs.

Now if I have

[ [Nhi]NP Vh [ ∅i XNP Vd-Inf] ]

how do I know which of the two transitive constructions is represented in the dependent clause? Is there a principle of general comparative grammar which determines this?

I beg the specialists’ pardon if this question is somehow misplaced.

Christian

--

Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
Rudolfstr. 4
99092 Erfurt
Deutschland

Tel.:   +49/361/2113417
E-Post: christianw_lehmann at arcor.de<mailto:christianw_lehmann at arcor.de>
Web:    https://www.christianlehmann.eu<https://www.christianlehmann.eu/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20241105/c700c112/attachment.htm>