Status Updates From An Introduction to Syntacti...

Successive cyclic movement allows us to save the subjacency condition!

The difference btw Raising to object and Control is whether the surface DP complement is selected by the verb (Control: eg “convince”), or surfaces post-verbally as the embedded subject of the TP-complement (Raising: eg “believe”)

Object control vs ECM verbs: OCs select an (inf-)TP-, ECMs, an (inf-)CP-complement

Selection test: is “time” selected by “seems” or “elapse” in “Time seems to elapse AdvP”? Change the embedded VP: “*Time seems to swim AdvP”: bad. Is it because of “seems”? Compare: “Sharks seem to swim AdvP”: fine. Conclusion: “Time” seems to be selected by “elapse”, not “seems”.

On the 1hand, VPE strands Neg°, so NegP can’t adjoin to VP (ie [VP [Neg] [VP]]), it must take VP as its complement (ie [NegP [Neg’ [Neg] [VP]]]), but on the other, Neg doesn’t change the category of what it applies to (“alienable” is Adj, so is “inalienable”), arguing for adjunction. Tough

I didn’t know there was controversy on whether adjuncts are sisters to X’ or XP: interesting!!

First phd textbook (of many) 💗🙂‍↕️