Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 19:06:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Seely <ENG_SEELY@EMUVAX.EMICH.EDU>
Subject: Comments to Broadwell from Seely
To: LINCONF@tamvm1.tamu.edu
Message-Id: <01IAPZE16GLE8WYMAO@EMUVAX.EMICH.EDU>
The following questions/comments are to G. A. Broadwell, but
discussion from all subscribers is welcome.
1. A general question is: What is the status of Condition-C in the
languages you deal with? Does it apply straightforwardly (i.e.
must R-expressions be A-free)?
A related question, which I put to everyone, is: Is there evidence
that Conditon-C is sensitive to thematic relations (as, it's been
argued, -B and -A are)?
The more technical part of the question (for the Broadwell paper) is
as follows:
Clearly, binding of an R-expression by INFL and COMP does not
induce a Condition-C violation, otherwise examples like (1), repeated
here, would be incorrectly out.
(1) John-at abiika-haatokoo-sh ik-iiy-o-tok.
John-NM sick-because-SS III-go:L-NEG-PT
`Because John(i) was sick, he(i) didn't go.'
But, depending on if and how Condition-C works in these languages
(I'm thinking about Lasnik's discussion of Condition-C in Thai),
doesn't this force certain points you make in section 2.1; viz:
We must (presumably) avoid a Condition-C violation in example (1);
thus, the pro subject of the matix-clause must not A-bind _John_ of
the because-clause.
If, in example (1) and others, we assume that pro is in an A-position,
and if we assume (a version of) m-commmand; then we would get the
unwanted Condition-C violation--pro would A-bind _John_. However, we
must assume m-command (or at least not strict c-command) to get the SS
marker bound (by INFL of the matrix). So, must we not assume that
subjects originate inside VP and that SPEC of IP is an A'-position?
In short,
A. if subjects are in A-positions and we assume m-command,
then we get the SS marker correctly A'-bound by INFL of matrix, but we
also get _John_ (incorrectly) A-bound by pro.
B. Only if subjects are in A'-positions can we assume either m-command
(in which case _John_ will not be A-bound but SS will be properly
A'-bound) or c-command (in which case SS would be A'-bound by _John_
[following your discussion in the last paragraph of section 2.1]--but
if the latter is the case, how do we guarantee that pro is coindexed
with _John_]?
Depending on how this is answered, I have some follow-up queries
about the Possessor Raising cases.
2. Another question for the Broadwell paper is: How do regular
anaphors work in these languages? Are they mono- or poly-morphemic,
long- or short-distance; are they generally well-behaved with
respect to classic BT?
3. I final question for now is: Is there a locality restriction
on SS binding? I'm thinking of something like: Because John
was sick when Bill came to the party, he just sat in the corner,
where the SS marker is potentially two clauses deep; can it
still be properly bound by matrix COMP?
Thank you for your comments on these issues.
--Daniel Seely
Eastern Michigan University
dseely@emunix.emich.edu