Eva Klingvall On non-copula Tough Constructions in Swedish (PDF ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

160(57) Derivation of the go-TCTPDP jT’iφ,uCaseTvPuφ,uEPPPPv’för DPvVPV kvAdvP V’t kCPDP iiφ,uWHD NP. . .N t jOpSince Swedish is a V2 language, the verb moves further up to C and thesubject moves to its specifier, in both TCs and go-TCs.4 On the interpretationAlthough TCs and go-TCs in many cases appear to have the same meaning,there are contexts in which their meanings can be teased apart. Consider thefollowing sentences again:
161(58) a. Artikelnpaper-DEFärislätt att läsa.easy to read‘The paper is easy to read.’b. Artikelnpaper-DEFgår lätt att läsa.goes easily to read‘The paper reads easily.’The sentences in (58) describe the paper as being an easy read. For manyspeakers, however, the nature of this property is interpreted as different in thetwo sentences. The following applies to those who recognize such a difference.15 The TC expresses a property that is derived from the subject alone,i.e. a disposition (see among others Brennan, 1993; Greenberg, 2003). Dispositionsare (in the ideal case) not dependent on external factors related tospecific situations. The property stated in the go-TC, in contrast, holds of aparticular situation. In other words, then, the go-TC names a property thatis instantiated in an actual event, while that is not the case in the TC. Thiscan be shown in two ways. Firstly, as mentioned in section 3.4 above, TCsand go-TCs differ in what type of Experiencer arguments they license in theirför-phrase. TCs are fine with generic arguments but not with specific ones asthey clash with the dispositions referred to. Go-TCs, on the other hand, areinfelicitous with generic arguments, but well-formed with specific ones:(59) a. Det brödet är lätt att baka för vem som helst/ ? Pelle.that bread-DEF is easy to bake for anyone/Pelle‘That bread is easy to bake for anyone/Pelle.’b. Det brödet går lätt att baka för?? vem som helst/Pelle.that bread-DEF goes easily to bake for anyone/Pelle‘That bread is easy to bake for anyone/Pelle.’Generic Experiencers are not well-formed in go-TCs because they abstractaway from the actual events (specific situations) that these constructions arelinked to. Conversely, specific arguments are infelicitous in TCs because, asmentioned above, it is in the nature of dispositions that they hold universally.15For those who do not get a semantic difference between TCs and go-TCs, the syntacticdifferences still apply, of course.
Page 1: On non-copula Tough Constructions i
Page 5 and 6: 135the constructions, and what embe
Page 7 and 8: 137and Fiengo, 1974). Lätt (‘eas
Page 9 and 10: 1392.2 The embedded verb and its ar
Page 11 and 12: 141general phonologically null Pred
Page 13 and 14: 1432.6 SummaryAlthough both TCs and
Page 15 and 16: 145Syntactically, the adjective is
Page 17 and 18: 147no longer concrete, it is retain
Page 19 and 20: 149read, not that it is fun to read
Page 21 and 22: 151as will be shown in the next sec
Page 23 and 24: 153c. * Boken ibook i -DEF[utan[wit
Page 25 and 26: 155b. ?? Per går lätt PRO Exp att
Page 27 and 28: 157(53) v’vVPuφVDPiφ,uCase,uWHD
Page 29: 159(56) Derivation of the TCTPDP jT
Page 33 and 34: 163is easy to read, in which case i
Page 35 and 36: 165Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on
Page 37: 167Rothstein, Susan. 1999. Fine-gra

Eva Klingvall On non-copula Tough Constructions in Swedish (PDF ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?