Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 321–380 | Cite as

Copy raising and perception

Article

Abstract

We examine copy raising in two closely related Germanic languages, English and Swedish, and offer a formal analysis of its syntax and semantics. We develop a new event semantics analysis of copy raising. In addition to augmenting the body of empirical data on copy raising, we show that copy raising yields novel insights into a number of key theoretical issues, in particular: language and perception, the theory of arguments and thematic roles, and the broader semantics of control and raising.

Keywords

Copy raising Raising Control Perception verbs Thematic roles Event semantics Arguments Variation 

References

  1. Asudeh, Ash. 2002. Richard III. In CLS 38: The main session, eds. Mary Andronis, Erin Debenport, Anne Pycha, and Keiko Yoshimura, Vol. 1, 31–46. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Google Scholar
  2. Asudeh, Ash. 2004. Resumption as resource management. PhD dissertation, Stanford University. Google Scholar
  3. Asudeh, Ash. 2005. Control and semantic resource sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 41 (3): 465–511. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asudeh, Ash. 2006. Direct compositionality and the architecture of LFG. In Intelligent linguistic architectures: Variations on themes by Ronald M. Kaplan, eds. Miriam Butt, Mary Dalrymple, and Tracy Holloway Kings, 363–387. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  5. Asudeh, Ash. 2012. The logic of pronominal resumption. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  6. Asudeh, Ash, and Ida Toivonen. 2007. Copy raising and its consequences for perception reports. In Architectures, rules, and preferences: Variations on themes by Joan W. Bresnan, eds. Annie Zaenen, Jane Simpson, Tracy Holloway King, Jane Grimshaw, Joan Maling, and Christopher Manning. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  7. Asudeh, Ash, and Ida Toivonen. 2009. Lexical-functional grammar. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, eds. Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog, 425–458. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  8. Bach, Emmon. 1981. On time, tense and aspect: An essay on English metaphysics. In Radical pragmatics, ed. Peter Cole, 62–81. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  9. Beaver, David I. 1997. Presupposition. In Handbook of logic and language, eds. Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen, 939–1008. Cambridge: MIT Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beaver, David I. 2001. Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  11. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd. Google Scholar
  12. Boškovič, Željko. 1994. D-structure, theta-criterion, and movement into theta-positions. Linguistic Analysis 24 (3–4): 247–286. Google Scholar
  13. Bresnan, Joan. 1978. A realistic transformational grammar. In Linguistic theory and psychological reality, eds. Morris Halle, Joan Bresnan, and George A. Miller, 1–59. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  14. Bresnan, Joan. 1982a. Control and complementation. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 343–434. Google Scholar
  15. Bresnan, Joan. 1982b. Polyadicity. In The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. Joan Bresnan, 149–172. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  16. Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  17. Brody, Michael. 1993. θ-theory and arguments. Linguistic Inquiry 24 (1): 1–23. Google Scholar
  18. Carlson, Gregory N. 1984. Thematic roles and their role in semantic interpretation. Linguistics 22: 259–279. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chierchia, Gennaro. 1984. Topics in the syntax and semantics of infinitives and gerunds. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Google Scholar
  20. Chierchia, Gennaro. 1989. Structured meanings, thematic roles and control. In Properties, types and meaning. Volume II: Semantic issues, eds. Gennaro Chierchia, Barbara H. Partee, and Raymond Turner, 131–166. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  22. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger. Google Scholar
  23. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A Minimalist Program for linguistic theory. In The view from building 20, eds. Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  24. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  25. Chung, Sandra. 1978. Case marking and grammatical relations in Polynesian. Austin: University of Texas Press. Google Scholar
  26. Crouch, Richard, and Josef van Genabith. 1999. Context change, underspecification, and the structure of Glue Language derivations. In Semantics and syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar: The resource logic approach, ed. Mary Dalrymple, 117–189. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  27. Dalrymple, Mary, ed. 1999. Semantics and syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar: The resource logic approach. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  28. Dalrymple, Mary. 2001. Lexical Functional Grammar. San Diego: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  29. Dalrymple, Mary, John Lamping, Fernando Pereira, and Vijay Saraswat. 1999. Quantification, anaphora, and intensionality. In Semantics and syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar, ed. Mary Dalrymple, 39–89. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  30. Darzi, Ali. 1996. Word order, NP-movements, and opacity conditions in Persian. PhD dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Google Scholar
  31. Davidson, Donald. 1967. The logical form of action sentences. In The logic of decision and action, ed. Nicholas Rescher, 81–95. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Reprinted in Davidson, Donald. 1980. Essays on actions and events, 105–122. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Google Scholar
  32. Davies, William D., and Stanley Dubinsky. 2004. The grammar of raising and control: A course in syntactic argumentation. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  33. Déprez, Viviane. 1992. Raising constructions in Haitian Creole. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 10: 191–231. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Dowty, David. 1989. On the semantic content of the notion of ‘thematic role’. In Properties, types and meaning. Volume II: Semantic issues, eds. Gennaro Chierchia, Barbara H. Partee, and Raymond Turner, 69–129. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Dowty, David R., Robert E. Wall, and Stanley Peters. 1981. Introduction to Montague Semantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  36. Faller, Martina. 2002. Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD dissertation, Stanford University. Google Scholar
  37. Fujii, Tomohiro. 2005. Cycle, linearization of chains, and multiple case checking. In Proceedings of Console XIII, eds. Sylvia Blaho, Luis Vicente, and Erik Schoorlemmer, 39–65. Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe, University of Leiden. Google Scholar
  38. Fujii, Tomohiro. 2007. Cyclic chain reduction. In The copy theory of movement, eds. Norbert Corver and Jairo Nunes, 291–326. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  39. Garrett, Edward. 2002. Evidentiality and assertion in Tibetan. PhD dissertation, UCLA. Google Scholar
  40. Girard, Jean-Yves. 1987. Linear logic. Theoretical Computer Science 50: 1–102. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gisborne, Nikolas. 1996. English perception verbs. PhD dissertation, University College London. Google Scholar
  42. Gisborne, Nikolas. 2010. The event structure of perception verbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  44. Gunlogson, Christine. 2003. True to form: Rising and falling declaratives as questions in English. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
  45. Heycock, Caroline. 1994. Layers of predication. New York: Garland. Google Scholar
  46. Higginbotham, James. 1983. The logic of perceptual reports: An extensional alternative to situation semantics. The Journal of Philosophy 80 (2): 100–127. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Higginbotham, James. 1985. On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 547–594. Google Scholar
  48. Horn, Laurence R. 1981. A pragmatic approach to certain ambiguities. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 321–358. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30 (1): 69–96. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jackendoff, Ray. 2007. Language, consciousness, culture: Essays on mental structure. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  51. Joseph, Brian D. 1976. Raising in Modern Greek: A copying process. In Harvard studies in syntax and semantics, eds. Jorge Hankamer and Judith Aissen, Vol. 2, 241–281. Cambridge: Harvard University, Department of Linguistics. Google Scholar
  52. Kaplan, Ronald M. 1987. Three seductions of computational psycholinguistics. In Linguistic theory and computer applications, eds. Peter Whitelock, Mary McGee Wood, Harold L. Somers, Rod Johnson, and Paul Bennett, 149–181. London: Academic Press. Reprinted in Dalrymple, Mary, Ronald M. Kaplan, John T. Maxwell, and Annie Zaenen, eds. 1995. Formal issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar, 339–367. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  53. Kaplan, Ronald M. 1989. The formal architecture of Lexical-Functional Grammar. In Proceedings of ROCLING II, eds. Chu-Ren Huang and Keh-Jiann Chen, 3–18. Reprinted in Dalrymple, Mary, Ronald M. Kaplan, John T. Maxwell, and Annie Zaenen, eds. 1995. Formal issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar, 7–27. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  54. Kaplan, Ronald M., and Joan Bresnan. 1982. Lexical-Functional Grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. Joan Bresnan, 173–281. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  55. Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In The generic book, eds. Gregory N. Carlson and Francis Jeffry Pelletier, 125–175. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  56. Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, eds. Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  57. Kratzer, Angelika. 2003. The event argument and the semantics of verbs. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Google Scholar
  58. Landau, Idan. 2009. This construction looks like a copy is optional. Linguistic Inquiry 40 (2): 343–346. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Landau, Idan. 2011. Predication vs. aboutness in copy raising. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29 (3): 779–813. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Landman, Fred. 2000. Events and plurality: The Jerusalem lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  61. Lappin, Shalom. 1984. Predication and raising. In Proceedings of NELS 14, eds. Charles Jones and Peter Sells, 236–252. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  62. Maling, Joan. 1983. Transitive adjectives: A case of categorial reanalysis. In Linguistic categories: Auxiliaries and related puzzles, eds. Frank Heny and Barry Richards, 253–289. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  63. Martin-Löf, Per. 1984. Intuitionistic type theory. Napoli: Bibliopolis. Google Scholar
  64. Matushansky, Ora. 2002. Tipping the scales: The syntax of scalarity in the complement of seem. Syntax 5 (3): 219–276. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. McCloskey, James. 1979. Transformational syntax and model theoretic semantics: A case-study in Modern Irish. Dordrecht: Reidel. Google Scholar
  66. McCloskey, James. 1990. Resumptive pronouns, \(\overline{\mathrm{A}}\)-binding and levels of representation in Irish. In Syntax of the Modern Celtic languages, ed. Randall Hendrick. Vol. 23 of Syntax and semantics, 199–248. San Diego: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  67. McCloskey, James. 2002. Resumption, successive cyclicity, and the locality of operations. In Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist Program, eds. Samuel David Epstein and T. Daniel Seeley, 184–226. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. McCloskey, James. 2006. Resumption. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, eds. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, 94–117. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. McCloskey, James, and Peter Sells. 1988. Control and A-chains in Modern Irish. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6: 143–189. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Montague, Richard. 1973. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In Approaches to language, eds. Jaakko Hintikka, Julian Moravcsik, and Patrick Suppes, 221–242. Dordrecht: Reidel. Reprinted in Montague, Richard. 1974. Formal philosophy: Selected papers of Richard Montague, 247–270. New Haven: Yale University Press. Edited and with an introduction by Richmond H. Thomason. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Moore, John. 1998. Turkish copy-raising and A-chain locality. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16: 149–189. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Nunberg, Geoffrey, Ivan A. Sag, and Thomas Wasow. 1994. Idioms. Language 70 (3): 491–538. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  74. Parsons, Terence. 1995. Thematic relations and arguments. Linguistic Inquiry 26 (4): 635–662. Google Scholar
  75. Payne, Thomas E. 1997. Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  76. Perlmutter, David M., and Scott Soames. 1979. Syntactic argumentation and the structure of English. Berkeley: University of California Press. Google Scholar
  77. Polinsky, Maria, and Eric Potsdam. 2006. Expanding the scope of control and raising. Syntax 9 (2): 171–192. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Pollard, Carl, and Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago and Stanford: University of Chicago Press and CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  79. Postal, Paul. 1974. On raising. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  80. Potsdam, Eric, and Jeffrey T. Runner. 2001. Richard returns: Copy Raising and its implications. In CLS 37: The main session, eds. Mary Andronis, Chris Ball, Heidi Elston, and Sylvain Neuvel, Vol. 1, 453–468. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Google Scholar
  81. Reinhart, Tanya. 2002. The theta system—an overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28: 229–290. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Rogers, Andy. 1971. Three kinds of physical perception verbs. In Papers from the seventh regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, eds. Douglas Adams, Mary Ann Campbell, Victor Cohen, Julie Lovins, Edward Maxwell, Carolyn Nygren, and John Reighard, 206–222. Google Scholar
  83. Rogers, Andy. 1972. Another look at flip perception verbs. In Papers from the eighth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, eds. Judith N. Levi, Paul M. Peranteau, and Gloria C. Phares, 303–315. Google Scholar
  84. Rogers, Andy. 1973. Physical perception verbs in English: A study in lexical relatedness. PhD dissertation, UCLA. Google Scholar
  85. Rogers, Andy. 1974. A transderivational constraint on Richard? In Papers from the tenth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, eds. Michael W. La Galy, Robert Allen Fox, and Anthony Bruck, 551–558. Google Scholar
  86. Rosenbaum, Peter S. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  87. Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
  88. Sells, Peter. 1984. Syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Google Scholar
  89. Strawson, Peter. 1950. Referring. Mind 59: 320–344. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Strawson, Peter. 1964. Identifying reference and truth values. Theoria 30: 96–118. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Teleman, Ulf, Staffan Hellberg, and Erik Andersson. 1999. Svenska Akademiens grammatik. Stockholm: Norstedts. Google Scholar
  92. Turner, Raymond. 1996. Weak theories of operations and types. Journal of Logic and Computation 6 (1): 5–31. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Turner, Raymond. 1997. Types. In Handbook of logic and language, eds. Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen, 535–586. Cambridge: MIT Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Ura, Hiroyuki. 1998. Checking, economy, and copy-raising in Igbo. Linguistic Analysis 28: 67–88. Google Scholar
  95. Van Benthem, Johan. 1988. Strategies of intensionalization. In Intensional logic, history of philosophy, and methodology: To Imre Ruzsa on the occasion of his 65th birthday, eds. István Bodnár, András Máté, and László Pólos, 41–59. Budapest: Department of Symbolic Logic, Eötvös University. Google Scholar
  96. Van Benthem, Johan. 1991. Language in action: Categories, lambdas, and dynamic logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Reprinted in 1995 by the MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  97. Van Egmond, Marie-Elaine. 2004. Copy raising in Dutch. Honours thesis, University of Canterbury. Google Scholar
  98. Van Genabith, Josef, and Richard Crouch. 1999. Dynamic and underspecified semantics for LFG. In Semantics and syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar: The resource logic approach, ed. Mary Dalrymple, 209–260. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  99. Willet, Thomas. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12 (1): 57–91. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Cognitive Science & School of Linguistics and Language StudiesCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Faculty of Linguistics, Philology & PhoneticsUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations