Control vs. complex predication : identifying non-finite complements

Cite This

Files in this item

Checksum: MD5:6541f0b11c0badf71672814eb2e120fe

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

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

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. 2014 Butt, Miriam 2014-02-28T14:44:39Z Natural Language & Linguistic Theory ; 32 (2014), 1. - S. 165-190 2014-02-28T14:44:39Z Butt, Miriam terms-of-use Control vs. complex predication : identifying non-finite complements

Downloads since Oct 1, 2014 (Information about access statistics)

Butt_266898.pdf 100

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Search KOPS


My Account