Control, raising and case: From the perspective of passives

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21248/hpsg.2006.9

Abstract

Since Pollard and Sag (1994) it has been assumed that raising involves full structure sharing, whereas a control verb merely shares the content of one of the lower verb's arguments. This has been considered a property of the phenomena, despite the fact that Pollard and Sag (1994) present this syntactic difference as a hypothesis confirmed for Icelandic only. In this paper we discuss the difference between raising and control from the perspective of Dutch and German passives. It has already been shown by Van Noord and Kordoni (2005) that the secondary object passives in these languages are raising structures, in which the case of the raised argument changes. In this paper we provide additional evidence for the raising analysis, and we propose a new analysis, which allows for a uniform account of Dutch and German passives as raising structures. Przepiorkowski and Rosen (2004) show that control may exhibit case transmission; the data presented in this paper shows that raising may not. Therefore, we claim that the distinction between raising and control is found in theta-role assignment. Syntactically they tend to behave differently, but they may also behave in the exact same way.

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

2006-10-12

How to Cite

Fokkens, Antske & Kordoni, Valia. 2006. Control, raising and case: From the perspective of passives. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar 158–173. (doi:10.21248/hpsg.2006.9) (https://proceedings.hpsg.xyz/article/view/646) (Accessed April 26, 2024.)