Freitag, 14.00 Uhr
Different types of purposive expressions, such as the ones in (1):
| (1) | a. | John visited Mary (in order) to please his mother | (In_Order_to Clause, IOC) |
| b. | John bought Mary a piano (*in order) to play sonatas on | (Object-gap Purpose Clause, OPC) | |
c. |
John brought Mary along (*in order) to talk to us |
(Subject-gap Purpose Clause, SPC) |
have been customarily analyzed as IP or VP-adjuncts (cf. Faraci (1974), Browning (1987), Jones (1985, 1991)). I will argue that such a treatment fails to capture a number of properties distinguishing the purposive expressions in (1). An alternative approach will be presented according to which all purposive expressions in (1) are introduced in the syntactic derivation under the matrix VP. In addition, it will be claimed that IOCs, as opposed to OPCs and SPCs, move outside VP. The motivation for such a movement is the fulfillment of a predication requirement that cannot be satisfied VP-internally in the case of IOCs. PC-licensing matrix verbs, such as buy in (1b) or bring in (1c), provide VP-internal configurations (cf. Hale and Keyser (1993)) such that the purposive clause can be predicated of, e.g., Mary HAS(buy) a piano to play sonatas on in (1b). However, IOCs must move outside VP and be predicated of the matrix event. This account straightforwardly captures the syntactic behavior of IOCs as either "low" or "high" adjuncts (they may or may not be sensitive to VP-operations affecting the matrix VP, or inside / outside the scope of matrix negations), as well as the consistent behavior of PCs as VP-internal constituents.
zum Programm der AG 8
zur alphabetischen Übersicht der Abstracts
zur zeitlichen Übersicht