Control vs. complex predication : identifying non-finite complements

Butt, Miriam

Control vs. complex predication : identifying non-finite complements

Files

Butt_266898.pdf(334.4 KB)

Date

2014

Publication type

Journal article

Published in

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory ; 32 (2014), 1. - pp. 165-190. - ISSN 0167-806X. - eISSN 1573-0859

Abstract

This paper comments on Davison's (2013) analysis of the Hindi/Urdu permissive as: (1) a control construction with an "allow to do" reading; (2) an ecm construction with an "allow to happen" reading. The paper reiterates Butt's (1995) original reasons for positing a complex predicate analysis of the "allow to do" permissive and extends the analysis to the "allow to happen" reading of the permissive. The argumentation covers different theoretical perspectives and brings out issues with respect to finiteness and different degrees of embedding that pertain to how "tight" a given predication ranging over subevents is. The paper argues that events embedded under a control or raising predicate are less tightly connected to the matrix verb/event than is the case in complex predication and that the different degrees of cohesion between events must be understood as reflecting embedding within different modules of grammar.

Subject (DDC)

400 Philology, Linguistics

Cite This

ISO 690

BUTT, Miriam, 2014. Control vs. complex predication : identifying non-finite complements. In: Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. 32(1), pp. 165-190. ISSN 0167-806X. eISSN 1573-0859. Available under: doi: 10.1007/s11049-013-9217-5

BibTex

@article{Butt2014Contr-26689,
  year={2014},
  doi={10.1007/s11049-013-9217-5},
  title={Control vs. complex predication : identifying non-finite complements},
  number={1},
  volume={32},
  issn={0167-806X},
  journal={Natural Language & Linguistic Theory},
  pages={165--190},
  author={Butt, Miriam}
}

RDF

<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
    xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
    xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
    xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > 
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/26689">
    <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2014-02-28T14:44:39Z</dc:date>
    <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2014-02-28T14:44:39Z</dcterms:available>
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/45"/>
    <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">This paper comments on Davison's (2013) analysis of the Hindi/Urdu permissive as: (1) a control construction with an "allow to do" reading; (2) an ecm construction with an "allow to happen" reading. The paper reiterates Butt's (1995) original reasons for positing a complex predicate analysis of the "allow to do" permissive and extends the analysis to the "allow to happen" reading of the permissive. The argumentation covers different theoretical perspectives and brings out issues with respect to finiteness and different degrees of embedding that pertain to how "tight" a given predication ranging over subevents is. The paper argues that events embedded under a control or raising predicate are less tightly connected to the matrix verb/event than is the case in complex predication and that the different degrees of cohesion between events must be understood as reflecting embedding within different modules of grammar.</dcterms:abstract>
    <dspace:hasBitstream rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/26689/2/Butt_266898.pdf"/>
    <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/"/>
    <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
    <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/26689/2/Butt_266898.pdf"/>
    <dc:contributor>Butt, Miriam</dc:contributor>
    <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
    <dcterms:bibliographicCitation>Natural Language &amp; Linguistic Theory ; 32 (2014), 1. - S. 165-190</dcterms:bibliographicCitation>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/45"/>
    <dc:rights>terms-of-use</dc:rights>
    <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
    <dcterms:issued>2014</dcterms:issued>
    <dc:creator>Butt, Miriam</dc:creator>
    <bibo:uri rdf:resource="http://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/26689"/>
    <dcterms:title>Control vs. complex predication : identifying non-finite complements</dcterms:title>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

Bibliography of Konstanz

Yes