1
Lingüística y Ciencia Cognitiva (LyCC)
ILLA-CCHS, 28/1/2014
Moving to the Edge: The Case of Adjunct Control in Portuguese
Jairo Nunes ([email protected])
Universidade de São Paulo
1. The empirical puzzle: Adjunct Control in English vs. Portuguese
. English:
(1) a. Johni greeted Maryk after [eci/*k entering the room]
b. [Which man]i greeted [which moman]k after [eci/*k entering the room]?
c. [Which woman]k did Johni greeted tk after [eci/*k entering the room]?
(2)
(3)
. European and Brazilian Portuguese:
. Infinitival adjuncts:
a. O Joãoi cumprimentou a Mariak depois de eci/*k entrar na sala
the João greeted
the Maria after
of
enter in-the room
‘João greeted Maria after entering the room.’
b. O Joãoi cumprimentou quemk depois de eci/*k entrar na sala?
the João greeted
who after of
enter in-the room
c. Quemk é que o Joãoi cumprimentou tk depois de eci/k entrar na sala?
who
is that the João greeted
after of
enter in-the room
‘Who did João greet after entering the room?’
. Finite adjuncts:
a. O Joãoi sempre cumprimenta a Mariak quando ec entra na sala
the João always greets
the Maria when
enters in-the room
‘João always greets Maria when he/she enters the room’
EP: ec = i/k/w
BP: ec = i/*k/*w
b. O Joãoi sempre cumprimenta quemi quando ec entra na sala?
the João always greets
who when
enters in-the room
EP: ec = i/k/w
BP: ec = i/*k/*w
c. Quemk (é que) o Joãoi sempre cumprimenta tk quando ec entra na sala?
who is that the João always greets
when
enters in-the room
EP: ec = i/k/w
BP: ec = i/k/*w
‘Who does João always greet when he/she enters the room?’
. Summary:
CONTROL INTO ADJUNCT CLAUSES
without wh-movement
with wh-movement
infinitives
finite clauses
infinitives
finite clauses
subject control
English
European subject control
Portuguese
subject control
Brazilian
Portuguese
─
─
subject control
subject control
─
subject or object
─
control
subject or object subject or object
control
control
2
2. Previous Approaches
2.1. Adjunct control in English
(4) Johni greeted Maryk after [eci/*k entering the room]
(5)
. Hornstein’s (2001) Merge-over-Move:
N = {Mary1, …}
K = [John entering the room]
L= greeted
(6)
N’ = {Mary0, …}
K = [John entering the room]
M = [greeted Mary]
(7)
Sideward Movement (Nunes 1995, 2001, 2004, Hornstein 2001)
K = [John entering the room]
P = [John greeted Mary]
(8)
[TP John [vP [vP John greeted Mary] [PP after John entering the room]]]
. Problem: Without further specifications, a Merge-over-Move approach predicts
that object control into adjuncts should never be possible, but it is allowed in EP and BP
infinitivals and BP finite clauses when wh-movement takes place (cf. (2c) and (3c)).
2.2. Subject control with object control verbs in Brazilian Portuguese
(9)
[O Pedro]1 convenceu [a Maria]2 [ec2/*1 a sair]
the Pedro convinced the Maria
to leave
‘Pedro convinced Maria to leave.’
(10)
. Modesto (2000):
a. O Pedro2 convenceu quem1 que pro2/*1 tinha que ir embora
the Pedro convinced who that
had that go away
‘Who did Pedroi convince that hei had to leave?’
b. Quem1 que o Pedro2 convenceu t1 que pro1/??2 tinha que ir embora
who that the Pedro convinced that
had that go away
‘Whoi did Pedro convince that hei had to leave?’ (Modestos’s judgements)
. null subjects in BP finite clauses must be A’-licensed
. (10) constitutes evidence against analyzing null subjects in BP as A-traces
. However:
. The matrix object in (10) does not c-command the embedded subject (Ferreira 2000,
2009):
(11) O João convenceu a Mariai [que [a idiota]i deveria assaltar um banco]
the João convinced the Maria that the idiot should rob
a bank
‘João convinced Mariai that [the idiot]i should rob a bank’
. The embedded clause in (10) behaves like an adjunct (Rodrigues 2004, Nunes 2009):
(12)
a. ??Quemi o João convenceu a Maria [que ti vem amanhã]?
who the J.
convinced the M.
that comes tomorrow
‘Who did João convince Maria [will come tomorrow]?’
3
b. *Comoi o João convenceu a Maria [que o Pedro tinha
how the João convinced the Maria that the Pedro had
que se vestir para a festa ti]?
that REFL dress for the party
‘Howi did João convince Mary [that Pedro had to dress for the party ti]?’
. Sentences like (10b) are actually ambiguous (Rodrigues 2004):
(13) Quem1 que o Pedro2 convenceu t1 que ec1/2 tinha que ir embora
who that the Pedro convinced that
had that go away
‘Whoi did Pedro convince that hei had to leave?’
. (10) mimics what is found in finite adjunct clauses in BP (Rodrigues 2004)
(14) a. O Joãoi repreendeu quemk quando eci/*k entrou na sala?
the João reprehended who when
entered in-the room
‘Who did Joãoi reprehend when hei entered the room?’
b. Quemk o Joãoi repreendeu tk quando eci/k entrou na sala?
who the João reprehended when
entered in-the room
‘Whok did Joãoi reprehend when hei/k entered the room?’
2.3. Adjunct control in Brazilian Portuguese and parasitic gaps
Rodrigues (2004) (following a suggestion by N. Hornstein): (14) should be
derived along the lines of Hornstein’s (2001) derivation of parasitic gaps
(15) a. O Joãoi repreendeu quemk quando eci/*k entrou na sala?
the João reprehended who when
entered in-the room
‘Who did Joãoi reprehend when hei entered the room?’
b. *Who filed [which paper]k without reading PGk?
(16)
a. Quemk o Joãoi repreendeu tk quando eci/k entrou na sala?
who the João reprehended when
entered in-the room
‘Whok did Joãoi reprehend when hei/k entered the room?’
b. [Which paper]k did you file tk after reading PGk?
. Problems:
(i) In a derivation of parasitic gap constructions based on sideward movement, a violation
of Merge over Move is allowed only if it is the only convergent option. Given that (17a),
which complies with Merge over Move, converges, it should block (17b):
(17) a. Quem repreendeu o João
quando quem entrou na sala?
who reprehended the João when who entered in-the room
‘Whoi reprehended João when hei entered the room?’
b. Quem o João repreendeu quem quando quem entrou na sala?
who the João reprehended who when who entered in-the room
‘Whok did João reprehend when hek entered the room?’
(ii) If (16a) is to be derived along the lines of (16b), why doesn’t wh-movement license
object control in English?
(18) *Whoi did John greet ti after eci entering the room?
4
(iii) the unavailable reading in (18) is OK in both BP and EP:
(19) Quemi é que o Joãok cumprimentou ti depois de eci/k entrar na sala? (BP/EP)
who is that the João greeted
after of
enter in-the room
‘Whoi did Johnk greet after hei/k entered the room?’
3. Towards an analysis of adjunct control in Portuguese
3.1. Assumptions
a) Hornstein’s (2001) movement theory of control (see also Boeckx, Hornstein and Nunes
2010)
b) Null subjects in finite clauses in EP are regular pros, whereas (“referential”) null
subjects in BP finite clauses are A-traces (see Ferreira 2000, 2009, Rodrigues 2002, 2004,
Nunes 2008, 2010)
(20) Brazilian Portuguese
a. *Ø comprou um carro novo.
bought.3SG a car new
‘She/he bought a new car.’
b. *O pai d[a Maria]i acha [que Øi está grávida]
the father of-the Maria thinks [that is pregnant-FEM]
‘Maria’s father thinks she is pregnant.’
c. *[A Maria]i disse [que o João acha [que Øi está grávida]]
the Maria said that the João thinks that is pregnant-FEM
‘Mariai said that the doctor thinks shei is pregnant.’
d. *Eui encontrei o livro [que Øi perdi]
I found
the book that lost.1SG
‘I found the book that I had lost’
. Finite Ts in Brazilian Portuguese are optionally associated with a complete φ-set
(Ferreira 2000, 2009, Nunes 2008, 2010):
(21) a. [O João]i disse [que Øi comprou um carro novo]
the João said that bought.3SG a car new
‘Joãoi said that hei/*j bought a new car.’
b. [[o João] T+Case disse [que [o João] T-Case comprou um carro novo]
c) Bošković’s (2007) deduction of the “Generalized EPP”:
. Chomsky (2001): the head of a strong phase is optionally assigned an EPP-type of
feature, which drives successively cyclic movement
(22) What did John say that Mary bought?
(23)
a. [vP Mary v+bought what] →EPP assignment to v
b. [vP whati [v’ Mary vEPP+bought ti]]
c. [CP that [TP Maryk [vP whati [v’ tk vEPP+bought ti]]]] →EPP assignment to C
d. [CP whati [C’ thatEPP [TP Mary [vP ti [v’ Mary vEPP+bought ti]]]]]
e. [vP John v+say [CP whati [C’ thatEPP [TP ...]]]] →EPP assignment to v
f. [vP whati [v’ John vEPP+say [CP ti [C’ thatEPP [TP ...]]]]]
g. [CP did [TP Johnm [vP whati [v’ tm vEPP+say [CP ti [C’ ...]]]]]] →EPP assignment to C
h. [CP whati [C’ didEPP [TP Johnm [vP ti [v’ ...]]]]]]
. Problem:
(24) *John thinks what Mary bought?
5
. Bošković’s (2007) deduction of the “Generalized EPP”: (i) the uninterpretable
edge feature that triggers successive cyclic movement (uF) is hosted by the moving
element; (ii) an interpretable feature must function as a probe in order to be checked; (iii)
parametric variation:
(25) a. Bulgarian wh-phrases: uF
b. Korean wh-phrases: iF
c. English wh-phrases: (uF)
(26)
a. [what√F did John [ t say [t that Mary [t bought t]]]]
b. *John thinks whatuF Mary bought t
4. Sideward movement and the locus of edge features
4.1. Proposal:. Amendment to Bošković’s (2007) system:
(27) a. Portuguese wh-phrases: uF is lexically optional
b. English wh-phrases: uF is optionally assigned during the computation
4.2. Analysis
4.2.1. Portuguese
4.2.1.1. Nonfinite adjuncts: BP and EP
(28) Quemi cumprimentou o Joãok depois de eci/*k entrar na sala?
who greeted
the João after of
enter in-the room
‘Who greeted John after entering the room?’
(29)
a. O Joãoi cumprimentou quemk depois de eci/*k entrar na sala?
the João greeted
who after of
enter in-the room
b. Quemk é que o Joãoi cumprimentou tk depois de eci/k entrar na sala?
who
is that the João greeted
after of
enter in-the room
‘Who did João greet after entering the room?’
Take the derivational step in (30). If wh is not lexically encoded with an edge
feature, then Merge over Move applies → subject control
(30) N = {João1, ...}
K = [vP quem entrar na
sala]
who enterINF in-the room
L = cumprimenta
greets
(31)
N´ = {João0, ...}
K = [vP quem entrar na
sala]
who enterINF in-the room
M = [cumprimenta João]
greets
(32)
Sideward movement:
N´ = {João0, ...}
K = [vP t entrar na
sala]
enterINF in-the room
M = [quem cumprimenta João]
who greets
João
6
(33)
[TP Quemi [[ti cumprimentou o João] [depois de ti entrar na sala]]
(cf. (28))
who
greeted
the João after of
enter in-the room
‘Who greeted John after entering the room?’
.Take the derivational step in (34). If wh is lexically encoded with an edge feature
→ Merge-over-Move is inapplicable → object control but no wh-in situ
(34) N = {João1, ...}
K = [vP quemuF entrar na
sala]
who
enterINF in-the room
L = cumprimenta
greets
(35)
Sideward movement:
N = {João1, ...}
K = [vP t entrar na
sala]
enterINF in-the room
M = [cumprimenta quemuF]
greets
who
(36)
a. *O João [[cumprimentou quemuF] [depois de t entrar
na sala]
the João greeted
who
after of
enterINF in-the room
‘Whoi did João greet after hei entered the room?’
b. Quem√F é que o João [t [[cumprimentou t ] [depois de t entrar na sala]
who
is that the João greeted
after of enterINF in-the room
‘Whoi did João greet after hei entered the room?’
. Subject control reading of (29):
(37) N = {o1, João0, T[p, n]1, cumprimentou0, quem1, depois1, de1, T[n]0, entrar0, em0, a0,
sala0, ...}
K = [[o João] entrar na
sala]
the João
enter in-the room
L=
[cumprimentou]
greeted
. Merge-over-Move applies and the final position of quem depends on
whether or not it is associated with uF. If it isn’t, it stays put (cf. (38a) = (29a)). If it is, it
must end up in the Spec of an interrogative C (cf. (38b)).
(38) a. O Joãoi [[cumprimentou quem] [depois de ti entrar
na sala] (=(29a))
the João greeted
who
after of
enterINF in-the room
‘Who did Joãoi greet after hei entered the room?’
b. Quem√F é que o Joãoi [cumprimentou t ] [depois de ti entrar na sala] (=(29b))
who
is that the João greeted
after of enterINF in-the room
‘Who did Joãoi greet after hei entered the room?’
4.2.1.2. Finite adjuncts: BP vs. EP
. EP: the null subject of the adjunct clause is a pro (finite Ts in EP always assign Case)
European Portuguese:
(39) a. O Joãoi sempre cumprimenta quemk quando proi/k/w entra na sala?
the João always greets
who when
enters in-the room
‘Who does João always greet when he/she enters the room?’
7
b. Quemk é que o Joãoi cumprimenta tk quando proi/k/w entra na sala?
the João always greets
who when
enters in-the room
‘Who does João greet when he/she enters the room?’
. BP: the adjunct null subject is a (Caseless) trace;
. Take the derivational step in (40). If wh is not lexically encoded with an edge
feature, then Merge over Move applies → subject control
(40) N = {João1, ...}
K = [vP quem entra na
sala]
who enters in-the room
L = cumprimenta
greets
(41)
N = {João0, ...}
K = [vP quem entra na
sala]
who enters in-the room
M = [cumprimenta João]
greets
(42)
Sideward movement:
K = [vP t entra na
sala]
enters in-the room
P = [vP quem cumprimenta João]
who greets
João
(43)
[TP Quemi [ [ti cumprimenta o João] [quando ti entra na sala]]
who
greets
the João when
enters in-the room
‘Whoi greets João when hei enters the room?’
. Take the derivational step in (44). If wh is lexically encoded with an edge feature,
then Move must apply → object control but no wh-in situ
(44) N = {João1, ...}
K = [vP quemuF entra na
sala]
who enters in-the room
L = cumprimenta
greets
(45)
Sideward movement:
N = {João1, ...}
K = [vP t entra na
sala]
enters in-the room
M = [cumprimenta quemuF]
greets
who
(46)
a. *O João sempre [[cumprimenta quemuF] [quando t entra na sala]
the João always greets
who
when
enters in-the room
‘Whoi does João always greet when hei enters the room?’
b. Quem√F o João sempre [t [[cumprimenta t ] [quando t entra na sala]
who the João always
greets
when
enters in-the room
‘Whoi does João always greet when hei enters the room?’
8
(47)
. Subject control reading of (47):
a. O Joãoi [[cumprimentou quem] [quando ti entrou na sala]
the João greeted
who
when
entered in-the room
‘Who did Joãoi greet when hei entered the room?’
b. Quem√F é que o Joãoi [cumprimentou t ] [quando ti entrou na sala]
who
is that the João greeted
when
entered in-the room
‘Who did Joãoi greet when hei entered the room?’
(48) N = {o1, João0, T[p, n]1, cumprimentou0, quem1, quando1, T[n]0, entrou0, em0, a0, sala0,
...}
K = [[o João] entrou na
sala]
the João entered in-the room
L=
[cumprimentou]
greeted
. Merge-over-Move applies and the final position of quem depends on
whether it is associated with uF (cf. (47b)) or not (cf. (47a)).
4.2.2. English
(49) a. Portuguese wh-phrases: uF is lexically optional
b. English wh-phrases: uF is optionally assigned during the computation
. If the edge feature is to be optionally assigned during the computation, its
assignment should be subject to Last Resort. In particular, assignment of uF to an element
that is already in an edge position should be blocked by Last Resort
4.2.2.1. Successive cyclic movement
(50) What did John say that Mary bought?
[vP Mary v+bought what] →uF assignment
[vP Mary v+bought whatuF]
[vP whatuF [v’ Mary v+bought t]]
[CP that [TP Maryk [vP whatuF [v’ tk v+bought t]]]]
[CP whatuF [C’ that [TP Mary [vP t [v’ tk v+bought t]]]]]
[vP John v+say [CP whatuF [C’ that [TP Mary [vP t [v’ tk v+bought t]]]]]]
[vP whatuF [v’ John v+say [CP t [C’ that [TP Mary [vP t [v’ tk v+bought t]]]]]]]
[CP did [TP Johnm [vP whatuF [v’ tm v+say [CP t [C’ that [TP Mary [vP t [v’ tk
v+bought t]]]]]]]]]
i. [CP what√uF [C’ did [TP Johnm [vP t [v’ tm v+say [CP t [C’ that [TP Mary [vP t [v’ tk
v+bought t]]]]]]]]]]
(51)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
(52)
Who did John say greeted Mary?
(53)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
[vP who v+greeted Mary]
(NO uF assignment)
[TP who [vP t v+greeted Mary]]
[CP C [TP who [vP t v+greeted Mary]]] →uF assignment
[CP C [TP whouF [vP t v+greeted Mary]]]
[CP whouF [C’ C [TP t [vP t v+greeted Mary]]]]
[vP John v+say [CP whouF [C’ C [TP t [vP t v+greeted Mary]]]]]
[vP whouF [v’ John v+say [CP t [C’ C [TP t [vP t v+greeted Mary]]]]]]
9
h.
i.
[CP did [TP Johnm [vP whouF [v’ tm v+say [CP t [C’ C [TP t [vP t v+greeted
Mary]]]]]]]]
[CP who√uF [C’ did [TP Johnm [vP t [v’ tm v+say [CP t [C’ C [TP t [vP t v+greeted
Mary]]]]]]]]]
4.2.2.2. Adjunct control
(54) Whok did Johni greet tk after eci/*k entering the room?
(55)
(56)
[vP who [ v [ entering the room]]]
(NO uF assignment)
. Merge-over-Move applies and only subject control is allowed:
N = {John1, …}
K = [vP who [ v [ entering the room]]]
L = greeted
(57)
N’ = {John0, …}
K = [vP who [ v [ entering the room]]]
M = [greeted John]
(58)
a. Whoi greeted John after ti entering the room?
b. *Whoi did John greet ti after ti entering the room?
4.2.2.3. Parasitic gap constructions
(59) a. [Which paper]i did you file ti without my reading ti first?
b. *Who filed [which paper]i without my reading ti first?
(60)
(61)
. Derivation of (59a):
a. [vP my v [reading [which paper] first] →assignment of uF
b. [vP my v [reading [which paper]uF first]
c. [vP [which paper]uF [v’ my v [reading t first]]
d. [vP [which paper]uF [v’ my v [reading t first]]
file
e. Merge-over-Move is inapplicable → sideward movement:
[vP t [v’ my v [reading t first]]
[file [which paper]uF]
f. [vP you v [file [which paper]uF]
g. [vP [which paper]uF [v’ you v [file t]]]
h. PP adjunction:
[vP [vP [which paper]uF [v’ you file t]] [PP without my [vP t [v’ reading t first]]]]
i. [CP did [TP you [vP [vP [which paper]uF [v’ you file t]] [PP without my
[vP t [v’ reading t first]]]]]]
j. [CP [which paper]√F [CP did [TP you [vP [vP t [v’ you file t]] [PP without my
[vP t [v’ reading t first]]]]]]]
. Derivation of (59b):
*[CP whoi [TP ti T [vP [vP ti v [filed [which paper]uF]] [PP without my [vP tk [v’
reading tk first]]]]
10
5. Extensions
5.1. English vs. Romance infinitivals (Kayne 1984)
(62) John believes Mary to be smart
(63)
a. *O João acredita a Maria ser inteligente
the João believes the Maria be intelligent
b. Quem o João acredita ser inteligente?
who the João believes be intelligent
‘Who does João believe to be intelligent?’
(64)
*O João acredita quem ser inteligente?
the João believes who be intelligent
‘Who does João believe to be intelligent?’
(65)
(66)
. Conceivable structures for (64):
a. Quem without uF:
*[o João acredita [CP C [TP quem ser inteligente]]]
b. Quem with uF:
*[o João acredita [CP quemuF C [TP t ser inteligente]]]
. Derivation of (63b):
[CP quem√F o João [vP t acredita [CP t C [TP t ser inteligente]]]]
5.2. Null Possessors in Portuguese
. Floripi (2003), Rodrigues (2004), Floripi and Nunes (2009): null possessors are an Atraces in BP (but pros in EP)
(67)
Joãoi conversou com o pai Øi
João talked
with the father
‘João talked with his father.’
(68)
. Brazilian Portuguese:
a. *[a prima Ø] chegou.
the cousin arrived
*'his/her cousin arrived’
b. #João disse que Maria vai
casar com [ o pai
Ø]
João said that Maria goes marry with the father
‘Joãok said that Mariai is going to marry her father.’
c. [[o amigo [de Joãok ]]i telefonou para a mãe Øi/*k
the friend of João
called
to the mother
‘[Joãok’s friend]i called hisi/*k mother.’
Prediction: subject/object asymetry in BP when wh-movement is involved, but
no such asymmetry in EP
11
(69)
a. A Mariai esbofeteou o Pedrok por causa do irmão ec
the Maria slapped
the Pedro by cause of-the brother
‘Maria slapped Pedro because of her/his brother (EP).’
her/*his brother (BP).’
b. A Mariai esbofeteou quemk por causa do irmão ec ?
the Maria slapped
who by cause of-the brother
‘Who did Maria slap because of his/her brother?’ (EP)
her/*his brother?’ (BP)
c. Quemk é que a Mariai esbofeteou tk por causa do irmão ec ?
who is that the Maria slapped
by cause of-the brother
‘Who did Maria slap because of his/her brother?’ (EP)
her/his brother?’ (BP)
. Possible continuation of the derivational step in (70) in BP, where quem does
not have uF:
(70) a.
K = [ o irmão quem]
L = esbofeteou
b.
K = [ o irmão quem]
M = [esbofeteou [a Maria]]
c.
K = [ o irmão ti]
M = [quemi esbofeteou [a Maria]]
e. [TP Quemi [vP [vP ti esbofeteou [a Maria]] [ por causa do irmão ti]]]
who
slapped
the Maria by cause of-the brother
‘Whoi slapped Maria because of hisi brother?’
. Possible continuations of the derivational step in (71) in BP, where quem has
uF:
(71)
a.
b.
c.
K = [ o irmão quemuF]
L = esbofeteou
K = [ o irmão t]
M = [esbofeteou quemuF]
K = [ o irmão t]
M = [[a Maria] esbofeteou quemuF]
(72)
*[TP [a Maria]k [vP [vP tk esbofeteou quemuF] [por causa do irmão t]]] (cf. (69b))
the Maria
slapped
who
by cause of-the brother
‘Whoi did Maria slap because of hisi brother?’
(73)
[CP quem√uF [TP [a Maria]k [vP [vP tk esbofeteou t] [por causa do irmão t]]]]
who
the Maria
slapped
by cause of-the brother
‘Whoi did Maria slap because of hisi brother?’
(cf. (69c))
12
6. Summary and concluding remarks
. Conditions regulating “upward” movement also constrain “sideward” movement:
(74) a. What did John say that Mary bought?
b. Quem o João acredita ser inteligente?
who the João believes be intelligent
‘Who does João believe to be intelligent?’
c. [Which paper]k did you file tk after reading PGk?
d. Quemk é que o João cumprimentou tk depois de tk entrar na sala?
(BP)
who
is that the João greeted
after of
enter in-the room
‘Whoi did João greet after hei entered the room?’
f. Quemk a Maria esbofeteou tk por causa do
irmão tk
(BP)
who the Maria slapped
by cause of-the brother
‘Whoi did Maria slap because of hisi brother?’
(75)
a. *John thinks what Mary bought?
b. *O João acredita quem ser inteligente?
the João believes who be intelligent
‘Who does João believe to be intelligent?’
c. *Who filed [which paper]k without reading PGk?
d. *O João cumprimentou quemk depois de tk entrar na sala?
the João greeted
who after of
enter in-the room
‘Whoi did João greet after hei entered the room?’
e. *A Maria esbofeteou quemk por causa do
irmão tk
the Maria slapped
who by cause of-the brother
‘Whoi did Maria slap because of hisi brother?’
(BP)
(BP)
. Novel kind of evidence for the Movement Theory of Control: adjunct control may be
affected by the movement properties of a given language
13
References
Boeckx, Cedric, Norbert Hornstein, and Jairo Nunes. 2010. Control as Movement.
Cambidge University Press, Cambridge.
Bošković, Željko. 2007. On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even
more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38:589-644.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995 The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, Michael
Kenstowicz (ed.), 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ferreira, Marcelo. 2000. Argumentos Nulos em Português Brasileiro. M.A. thesis,
Universidade Estadual de Campinas.
Ferreira, Marcelo. 2009. Null Subjects and Finite Control in Brazilian Portuguese. In Jairo
Nunes (ed.): Minimalist Essays on Brazilian Portuguese Syntax, 17-49. John
Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Floripi, Simone. 2003. Argumentos Nulos dentro de DPs em Português Brasileiro. M.A.
thesis. Universidade Estadual de Campinas.
Floripi, Simone and Jairo Nunes. 2009. Movement and Resumption in Null Possessor
Constructions in Brazilian Portuguese. In Jairo Nunes (ed.): Minimalist Essays on
Brazilian Portuguese Syntax, 51-68. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Blackwell, Oxford.
Modesto, Marcelo. 2000. On the identification of null Arguments. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern California.
Nunes, Jairo. 1995. The Copy Theory of Movement and Linearization of Chains in the
Minimalist Program. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.
Nunes, Jairo. 2001. Sideward movement. Linguistic Inquiry 31:303-344
Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass.
Nunes, Jairo. 2008. Inherent Case as a Licensing Condition for A-movement: The Case
of Hyper-raising Constructions in Brazilian Portuguese. Journal of Portuguese
Linguistics 7:83-108.
Nunes, Jairo. 2009. Dummy Prepositions and the Licensing of Null Subjects in Brazilian
Portuguese. In E. Aboh, E. van der Linden, J. Quer, and P. Sleeman (eds.): Romance
Languages and Linguistic Theory: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’
Amsterdam 2007, 243-265. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Nunes, Jairo. 2010. Relativizing Minimality for A-movement: φ- and θ-relations. Probus
22:1-25
Nunes, Jairo. Forthcoming. Adjunct Control and Edge Features. In P. Kosta, S. Franks,
L. Schürcks, and T. Radeva-Bork (eds.) Minimalism and Beyond: Radicalizing the
Interfaces. John Benjamins
Rodrigues, Cilene. 2002. Morphology and Null Subjects in Brazilian Portuguese. In:
Syntactic Effects of Morphological Changes (D. Lightfoot, ed.), pp. 160-178. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Rodrigues, Cilene. 2004. Impoverished morphology and A-movement out of Case
domains. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.