{"title":"操作顺序和 A/Ā 相互作用","authors":"Elise Newman","doi":"10.1007/s11049-023-09611-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Double object constructions provide an ideal context in which to investigate interactions between multiple instances of movement. With two internal arguments, we can construct scenarios where one A-moves and another Ā-moves, such as in the passive wh-question <i>What was Sue given?</i> Holmberg et al. (2019) observe that in many languages (e.g. Norwegian) that otherwise permit either object of a double object construction to A-move to subject position, a restriction emerges when the indirect object wh-moves: the indirect object must also A-move (e.g. <i>Who was given a book?</i>). One cannot pronounce an indirect object wh-question in a clause where the direct object A-moves instead (*<i>Who was a book given?</i>). In this paper, I observe that this restriction is only found in languages that otherwise permit the indirect object to A-move. In languages such as Greek, which have no indirect object passives, indirect objects can freely wh-move in a direct object passive, and thus do not exhibit the same restriction as in Norwegian. I propose that this restriction comes about in languages such as Norwegian but not Greek due to the timing of wh-movement relative to A-movement within <i>v</i>P. Indirect objects wh-move through the position that controls A-movement early, blocking a direct object from A-moving, so long as the indirect object can A-move itself. The analysis features a <i>smuggling</i> approach to passives of ditransitives (Collins 2005) and an economy condition like van Urk and Richards’ (2015) <i>Multitasking</i>, which jointly predict the order of operations that gives rise to the wh-movement restriction observed in Norwegian.</p>","PeriodicalId":18975,"journal":{"name":"Natural Language & Linguistic Theory","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The order of operations and A/Ā interactions\",\"authors\":\"Elise Newman\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11049-023-09611-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Double object constructions provide an ideal context in which to investigate interactions between multiple instances of movement. With two internal arguments, we can construct scenarios where one A-moves and another Ā-moves, such as in the passive wh-question <i>What was Sue given?</i> Holmberg et al. (2019) observe that in many languages (e.g. Norwegian) that otherwise permit either object of a double object construction to A-move to subject position, a restriction emerges when the indirect object wh-moves: the indirect object must also A-move (e.g. <i>Who was given a book?</i>). One cannot pronounce an indirect object wh-question in a clause where the direct object A-moves instead (*<i>Who was a book given?</i>). In this paper, I observe that this restriction is only found in languages that otherwise permit the indirect object to A-move. In languages such as Greek, which have no indirect object passives, indirect objects can freely wh-move in a direct object passive, and thus do not exhibit the same restriction as in Norwegian. I propose that this restriction comes about in languages such as Norwegian but not Greek due to the timing of wh-movement relative to A-movement within <i>v</i>P. Indirect objects wh-move through the position that controls A-movement early, blocking a direct object from A-moving, so long as the indirect object can A-move itself. The analysis features a <i>smuggling</i> approach to passives of ditransitives (Collins 2005) and an economy condition like van Urk and Richards’ (2015) <i>Multitasking</i>, which jointly predict the order of operations that gives rise to the wh-movement restriction observed in Norwegian.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18975,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Natural Language & Linguistic Theory\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Natural Language & Linguistic Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-023-09611-3\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Natural Language & Linguistic Theory","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-023-09611-3","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
双宾语结构为研究多个运动实例之间的相互作用提供了理想的语境。有了两个内部参数,我们就可以构建出一个A移动、另一个Ā移动的情景,例如在被动Wh-问句 "What was Sue given?Holmberg 等人(2019)观察到,在许多语言(如挪威语)中,双宾语结构中的任何一个宾语都可以A-移动到主语位置,但当间接宾语wh-移动时,就会出现一个限制:间接宾语也必须A-移动(如Who was given a book?)。在直接宾语 A 移动的句子中,我们不能发间接宾语 wh-question 的音(*Who was a book given?)。在本文中,我发现这种限制只存在于允许间接宾语A移动的语言中。在希腊语等没有间接宾语被动语的语言中,间接宾语可以在直接宾语被动语中自由地wh-move,因此没有表现出与挪威语相同的限制。我认为,在挪威语等语言中之所以会出现这种限制,而在希腊语中不会出现这种限制,是因为在vP中,wh-movement相对于A-movement的时间不同。间接宾语的wh-move提前通过控制A-move的位置,阻止了直接宾语的A-move,只要间接宾语本身可以A-move。该分析以走私法(Collins,2005年)和van Urk和Richards(2015年)的 "多任务处理"(Multitasking)等经济条件为特色,共同预测了挪威语中出现wh-movement限制的操作顺序。
Double object constructions provide an ideal context in which to investigate interactions between multiple instances of movement. With two internal arguments, we can construct scenarios where one A-moves and another Ā-moves, such as in the passive wh-question What was Sue given? Holmberg et al. (2019) observe that in many languages (e.g. Norwegian) that otherwise permit either object of a double object construction to A-move to subject position, a restriction emerges when the indirect object wh-moves: the indirect object must also A-move (e.g. Who was given a book?). One cannot pronounce an indirect object wh-question in a clause where the direct object A-moves instead (*Who was a book given?). In this paper, I observe that this restriction is only found in languages that otherwise permit the indirect object to A-move. In languages such as Greek, which have no indirect object passives, indirect objects can freely wh-move in a direct object passive, and thus do not exhibit the same restriction as in Norwegian. I propose that this restriction comes about in languages such as Norwegian but not Greek due to the timing of wh-movement relative to A-movement within vP. Indirect objects wh-move through the position that controls A-movement early, blocking a direct object from A-moving, so long as the indirect object can A-move itself. The analysis features a smuggling approach to passives of ditransitives (Collins 2005) and an economy condition like van Urk and Richards’ (2015) Multitasking, which jointly predict the order of operations that gives rise to the wh-movement restriction observed in Norwegian.
期刊介绍:
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory provides a forum for the discussion of theoretical research that pays close attention to natural language data, offering a channel of communication between researchers of a variety of points of view. The journal actively seeks to bridge the gap between descriptive work and work of a highly theoretical, less empirically oriented nature. In attempting to strike this balance, the journal presents work that makes complex language data accessible to those unfamiliar with the language area being studied and work that makes complex theoretical positions more accessible to those working outside the theoretical framework under review. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory features: generative studies on the syntax, semantics, phonology, morphology, and other aspects of natural language; surveys of recent theoretical developments that facilitate accessibility for a graduate student readership; reactions/replies to recent papers book reviews of important linguistics titles; special topic issues. Springer fully understands that access to your work is important to you and to the sponsors of your research. We are listed as a green publisher in the SHERPA/RoMEO database, as we allow self-archiving, but most importantly we are fully transparent about your rights. Read more about author''s rights on: http://www.springer.com/gp/open-access/authors-rights