Movement-Resistant Aspects of Control
Movement-Resistant Aspects of Control
复制标题
控制的防移动方面
DOI：
10.1007/978-1-4020-6176-9_14
复制
发表时间：
2007
影响因子：
1.3
通讯作者：
I. Landau
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
I. Landau
本文是对近年来句法理论研究中关于强制性控制（OC）性质的争论的一个贡献。虽然这场辩论有许多参与者和方法，但我在这里特别关注两种对立的观点：朗道1999，2000，2003，2004 a，2006中代表的观点，以及Hornstein 1999，2001，2003和Boeckx and Hornstein 2004中代表的观点。前者认为，组织合作是由一种抽象的同意关系构成的，这种同意关系由功能中心语作为中介。根据后一种观点（控制的运动理论（MTC）），OC是由A-运动形成的，A-运动是提升的一个实例。朗道（2003）提供了许多独立的论据，表明Hornstein（1999）提出的MTC未能解释关于OC和非强制性控制（NOC）的最重要的概括。作为回应，Hornstein（2003）提出了各种经验问题，并为它们提供了新颖的，有时是巧妙的分析。它还批评了朗道1999年提案的关键方面。反过来，Boeckx and Hornstein（2004）声称，朗道（2003）中反对MTC的大多数论点在更仔细的审查后都无法生存。这些都是值得欢迎的事态发展。随着辩论的进行，理论立场不断尖锐化，带来了越来越多的经验结果。本文件有三个目的。它首先检查霍恩斯坦（2003年）的处理各种经验的挑战，MTC和评估如何以及他的解决方案，以满足这些挑战。接下来，它澄清和捍卫朗道1999年的某些方面，批评（和错误描述）在霍恩斯坦2003年。最后，它说明了为什么Boeckx和Hornstein（2004）的回答没有触及朗道（2003）所表达的批判的本质。本文的总体结构或多或少遵循Hornstein 2003的讨论，然后转向Boeckx和Hornstein 2004专门处理的一些问题。给读者一个警告：因为这是一个正在进行的辩论，有相当长的历史，所以在每一个新的部分中详细阐述这段历史变得越来越麻烦。因此，省略了在辩论的前几个阶段中已经得到充分体现的许多材料-包括数据和论据。因此，以下讨论的前提是对相关文献有所了解。我希望，下面的论点将在这种知识的背景下得到理解和判断。
This paper is a contribution to the ongoing debate about the nature of obligatory control (OC) in recent syntactic theorizing.* Although the debate has seen many participants and approaches, I focus here on two opposing views in particular: The view represented in Landau 1999, 2000, 2003, 2004a, 2006, and the view represented in Hornstein 1999, 2001, 2003 and Boeckx and Hornstein 2004. According to the former, OC is formed by an abstract Agree relation, mediated by functional heads. On the latter view (the movement theory of control (MTC)), OC is formed by A-movement, an instance of raising. Landau 2003 provides numerous independent arguments showing that the MTC as developed in Hornstein 1999 fails to account for the most significant generalizations about OC and non-obligatory control (NOC). In response, Hornstein (2003) addresses a variety of empirical problems and offers novel, sometimes ingenious, analyses for them. It also criticizes key aspects of the proposal in Landau 1999. Boeckx and Hornstein 2004, in turn, claims that most of the arguments in Landau 2003 against the MTC do not survive upon closer scrutiny. These are welcome developments. As the debate proceeds, theoretical positions are continually sharpened, bringing to light more and more empirical consequences. The purpose of the present paper is threefold. It first examines Hornstein’s (2003) treatment of various empirical challenges to the MTC and evaluates how well his solutions meet these challenges. It next clarifies and defends certain aspects of Landau 1999 that are criticized (and misdescribed) in Hornstein 2003. Lastly, it shows why the reply in Boeckx and Hornstein 2004 fails to address the essence of the critique expressed in Landau 2003. The general organization of this paper more or less follows the discussion in Hornstein 2003 and then turns to some issues exclusively treated in Boeckx and Hornstein 2004. One cautionary note to the reader: Because this is an ongoing debate with a considerable history, it becomes increasingly cumbersome to elaborate this history on each new installment. Therefore, much material – both data and arguments – that is already well-represented in the previous stages of the debate has been omitted. The discussion to follow thus presupposes some familiarity with the relevant literature. It is my hope that the arguments below will be appreciated and judged against the background of this knowledge.