Control and raising passives, and why Mandarin does not smuggle
MetadataShow full item record
CitationLiu, Na, and C.-T. James Huang. 2016. “Control and Raising Passives, and Why Mandarin Does Not Smuggle.” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 25 (4) (September 22): 385–404. doi:10.1007/s10831-016-9148-3.
AbstractCollins (Syntax 8:81–120, 2005) proposes a smuggling approach to English passives that solves some problems associated with the traditional analysis. This article will show that while English passives involve smuggling, Mandarin passives do not; we offer an explanation for this difference. We first provide evidence that Mandarin passives can have not only control structures (as previously assumed) but also the possibility of a raising derivation involving A-movement, thus ruling out control as the sole reason for the absence of smuggling. We then attribute the absence of smuggling in Mandarin to the existence of vP-internal movement, which implies that Chinese allows multiple Specs of vP while English does not. This analysis helps tie together a number of otherwise unrelated differences between these languages (vP-internal movement, quantifier float, and constituency). We see the results as falling within the basic tenets of the theory of UG: While UTAH and Minimality are presumably universal requirements, individual grammars may employ different strategies to satisfy them.
Citable link to this pagehttp://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33983358
- FAS Scholarly Articles