Very interesting! Here is a question/comment I have about coordinating conjunctions & DPs:
It seems like the extended i* approach should be able to say something about DP coordination (e.g., ‘Jane, Emily, and Mary’). If DOs are special with respect to how they are introduced in syntax, should we expect some sort of parallel between a DO and the first merged DP in a coordination structure? Note that the conjunction ‘and’ is phonologically overt, suggesting that Root+Tr is present in the derivation, similar to verbs and prepositions. I’d be curious to know what your recent/updated thoughts are on this (if there are any).
This is an excellent question/issue! And, until I read Soo-Hwan’s comment, I had no thoughts about it at all. He’s correct that the DPs internal to a coordinated DP should be introduced into the coordinated structure via a Tr head. My only potentially interesting thoughts at the moment concern whether we need a Tr head for each of the conjuncts or whether one of the conjuncts, perhaps identified as the “head” of the conjunction, can wait to be introduced via the Merger of the whole conjunction with a Tr head, when the conjunction finally finds its way into the main spine of the sentence. That is, I believe it’s worth trying to work things out both ways: (1) internal to the conjunction, there’s a Tr head for each DP and (2) one of the DPs internal to the conjunction doesn’t get introduced via a Tr head but serves as head for the entire conjunction as is introduced along with the entire conjunction.
Another question I have relates to DO passivization:
It would be interesting to see if your extended i* analysis has something to say about the asymmetry we get with the DO passivization in double object constructions (DOCs) and prepositional dative constructions (PDCs):
(a) Jane handed a book to Mary. (PDC)
(b) A book was handed to Mary. (DO passivization)
(c) Jane handed Mary a book. (DOC)
(d) *A book was handed Mary. (DO passivization)
Based on your (21) and (24), it looks like the IO would be closer to T than the DO would be. How do we make sense of the asymmetry observed in (b) and (d)? Of course, if we believe that syntax is ‘broken’ to a certain extent (as you alluded to in your previous posts), then the issue becomes somewhat trivial. Moving away from the ‘if it’s everyone’s problem, then it’s not my problem’ mindset for a moment, I wonder if the ‘c-command as a type of feature percolation’ story offers us enough wiggle room, but is restrictive enough, to capture what is at issue here.
Soo-Hwan raises a very interesting question about the THEME GOAL order of the double object construction, what Bruening creates via R-shift from the GOAL THEME order. Here, as in (24), one might expect the GOAL to passivize and the THEME not. It’s not clear that’s there is a good passive from this structure, and I leave it to the reader to work through the various possibilities — what might go wrong if one tried to A-move either the THEME or the GOAL.
However, it’s important to mention that (24) is NOT the structure for the standard PDC. The usual, “Jane handed a book to Mary,” sentence would have the same structure as “Jane put the book on the table,” where it’s clear that the THEME is “closer” to the top of the vP than the LOCATION/GOAL and where only the THEME would be able to passivize, given the usual assumptions.
Very interesting! Here is a question/comment I have about coordinating conjunctions & DPs:
It seems like the extended i* approach should be able to say something about DP coordination (e.g., ‘Jane, Emily, and Mary’). If DOs are special with respect to how they are introduced in syntax, should we expect some sort of parallel between a DO and the first merged DP in a coordination structure? Note that the conjunction ‘and’ is phonologically overt, suggesting that Root+Tr is present in the derivation, similar to verbs and prepositions. I’d be curious to know what your recent/updated thoughts are on this (if there are any).
This is an excellent question/issue! And, until I read Soo-Hwan’s comment, I had no thoughts about it at all. He’s correct that the DPs internal to a coordinated DP should be introduced into the coordinated structure via a Tr head. My only potentially interesting thoughts at the moment concern whether we need a Tr head for each of the conjuncts or whether one of the conjuncts, perhaps identified as the “head” of the conjunction, can wait to be introduced via the Merger of the whole conjunction with a Tr head, when the conjunction finally finds its way into the main spine of the sentence. That is, I believe it’s worth trying to work things out both ways: (1) internal to the conjunction, there’s a Tr head for each DP and (2) one of the DPs internal to the conjunction doesn’t get introduced via a Tr head but serves as head for the entire conjunction as is introduced along with the entire conjunction.
Another question I have relates to DO passivization:
It would be interesting to see if your extended i* analysis has something to say about the asymmetry we get with the DO passivization in double object constructions (DOCs) and prepositional dative constructions (PDCs):
(a) Jane handed a book to Mary. (PDC)
(b) A book was handed to Mary. (DO passivization)
(c) Jane handed Mary a book. (DOC)
(d) *A book was handed Mary. (DO passivization)
Based on your (21) and (24), it looks like the IO would be closer to T than the DO would be. How do we make sense of the asymmetry observed in (b) and (d)? Of course, if we believe that syntax is ‘broken’ to a certain extent (as you alluded to in your previous posts), then the issue becomes somewhat trivial. Moving away from the ‘if it’s everyone’s problem, then it’s not my problem’ mindset for a moment, I wonder if the ‘c-command as a type of feature percolation’ story offers us enough wiggle room, but is restrictive enough, to capture what is at issue here.
Soo-Hwan raises a very interesting question about the THEME GOAL order of the double object construction, what Bruening creates via R-shift from the GOAL THEME order. Here, as in (24), one might expect the GOAL to passivize and the THEME not. It’s not clear that’s there is a good passive from this structure, and I leave it to the reader to work through the various possibilities — what might go wrong if one tried to A-move either the THEME or the GOAL.
However, it’s important to mention that (24) is NOT the structure for the standard PDC. The usual, “Jane handed a book to Mary,” sentence would have the same structure as “Jane put the book on the table,” where it’s clear that the THEME is “closer” to the top of the vP than the LOCATION/GOAL and where only the THEME would be able to passivize, given the usual assumptions.