Abstract
Our paper focuses on binding relations in the Polish piacere-type psychological verb podobać się ‘to please’. In particular, we aim to test the make-up of the argument structure of this verb, which is taken in the literature to be of a double object unaccusative verb (Belletti and Rizzi 1988; Miechowicz-Mathiasen and Scheffler 2008; Jiménez-Fernández and Rozwadowska 2016; a.o.). To this end, we conduct an experimental study, which examines the ability of pre-verbally spelled-out NOM and DAT arguments of podobać się to bind possessive pronouns/reflexives. As a point of reference, we use the results of our previous study on binding relations in Polish double object constructions (DOCs). The study revealed that the higher object, in [Spec;VP], can bind only a possessive pronoun, and not a possessive reflexive embedded in the lower object. The results of our present study display analogous binding relations in podobać się, which provides an argument in favor of the double object unaccusative structure of this verb. Based on our results, we advance a theoretical account of binding in podobać się, which assumes the Index Theory of Binding (Hestvik 1992; Nikolaeva 2014) together with a slightly modified version of a recent analysis of podobać się put forward in Jiménez-Fernández and Rozwadowska (2016).
References
Andrews, A.D. 1976. “The VP-complement analysis in Modern Icelandic”. In: Maling, J. and A. Zaenen (eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 24. Modern Icelandic syntax San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 165–185.Search in Google Scholar
Andrews, A.D. 1982a. The representation of Case in Modern Icelandic. In: Bresnan, J. (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 427–503.Search in Google Scholar
Andrews, A.D. 1982b. Long distance agreement in Modern Icelandic. In: Jacobson, P. and G.K. Pullum (eds.), The nature of syntactic representation Dordrecht: Reidel. 1–33.10.1007/978-94-009-7707-5_1Search in Google Scholar
Baguley, T. 2004. An introduction to sphericity. Nottingham Trent University.Search in Google Scholar
<http://homepages.gold.ac.uk/aphome/spheric.html> (Accessed 26 Sep 2018.)Search in Google Scholar
Belletti, A. and L. Rizzi. 1988. “Psych-verbs and theory”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6. 291–352.10.1007/BF00133902Search in Google Scholar
Bailyn, J.F. 2004. “Generalized inversion”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22. 1–49.10.1023/B:NALA.0000005556.40898.a5Search in Google Scholar
Biały, A. 1998. “Unaccusativity in Polish”. In: Kruijff-Korbayová, I. (ed.), Proceedings of the Third ESSLLI Student Session 63–76.Search in Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. 2000. “Quriky Agreement”. Studia Linguistica 54(3). 354–380.10.1111/1467-9582.00070Search in Google Scholar
Bondaruk, A. and B. Szymanek. 2007. “Polish nominativeless constructions with dative experiencers: Form, meaning and structure”. Studies in Polish Linguistics 4. 61–99.Search in Google Scholar
Branigan, P. 1992. Subjects and complementizers. (PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.)Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1976. “Conditions on rules of grammar”. Linguistic analysis 2. 303–351.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001a. “Derivation by phase”. In: Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1–52.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001b. “Beyond explanatory adequacy”. (MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20.) [Published 2004 in: Belletti, A. (ed.), Structures and beyond – The cartography of syntactic structure (Vol. 3.) Oxford: Oxford University Press. 104–131.]Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2005. “On phases” (ms.). [Published 2008 in: Freidin, R., C. Otero and M.-L. Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 133–166.]Search in Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. 1990. Argument structure Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hestvik, A. 1992. “LF movement of pronouns and antisubject orientation”. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 557–594.Search in Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic structures Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Jiménez-Fernández, Á.L. and B. Rozwadowska. 2016. “The information structure of Dative Experiencer psych verbs”. In: Zabawa, M., B. Kuczok and B. Cetnarowska (eds.), Various dimensions of contrastive studies Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego. 100–121.Search in Google Scholar
Maling, J. 1990. “Inversion in embeded clauses in Modern Icelandic”. In: Maling, J. and A. Zaenen (eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 24. Modern Icelandic syntax San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 71–91.Search in Google Scholar
Matushansky, O. 2006. “Head movement in linguistic theory”. Linguistic Inquiry 37(1). 69–109.10.1162/002438906775321184Search in Google Scholar
Miechowicz-Mathiasen, K. 2005. “Subjecthood of quirky subjects and GF-Split”. In: Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, K., J. Witkoś, G. Michalski and B. Wiland (eds.), Proceedings of the First Student Conference on Formal Linguistics Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne. 29–57.Search in Google Scholar
Miechowicz-Mathiasen, K. and P. Scheffler. 2008. “A corpus-based analysis of the peculiar behavior of the Polish verb podobać się”. In: Witkoś, J. and G. Fanselow (eds.), Elements of Slavic and Germanic grammars: A comparative view Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 89–111.Search in Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S. 2010. Why agree? Why move? Unifying agreement-based and discourse configurational languages (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 54.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/8116.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Müller, G. 2004. “Verb-Second as vP-First”. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 7(3). 179–234.10.1023/B:JCOM.0000016453.71478.3aSearch in Google Scholar
Nevins, A. 2004. “Derivations without the Activity Condition”. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49. 287–310.Search in Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, L. 2014. The secret life of pronouns. (PhD dissertation, MIT.)Search in Google Scholar
Reinders-Machowska, E. 1991. “Binding in Polish”. In: Koster J. and E.J. Reuland (eds.), Long-distance anaphora Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 137–150.10.1017/CBO9780511627835.007Search in Google Scholar
Richards, M. 2008. “Defective Agree, case alternation, and the prominence of person”. In: Richards, M. and A. Malchukov (eds.), Scales Leipzig: Universität Leipzig. 137–161.Search in Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1990. “On the anaphor-agreement effect”. Rivista di Linguistica 2(1). 27–42.10.4324/9780203461785-11Search in Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H.Á. 1989. Verbal syntax and Case in Icelandic. (PhD Dissertation, Lund Univeristy.) [Published 1992, Institute of Linguistics, University of Iceland, Reykjavik.]Search in Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H.Á. 1992. “The case of quirky subjects”. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 49. 1–26.Search in Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H.Á. 2004. “Icelandic non-nominative subjects: Facts and implications”. In: Bhaskararao, P. and K.V. Subbarao (eds.), Non-nominative subjects (vol. 2). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 137–159.10.1075/tsl.61.09sigSearch in Google Scholar
Tajsner, P. 2008. Aspects of the grammar of focus: A minimalist perspective Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H. 1979. On complementation in Icelandic. (PhD dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.) [Published by Garland, New York].Search in Google Scholar
Wiland, B. 2009. Aspects of order preservation in Polish and English. (PhD dissertation, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań.)Search in Google Scholar
Wiland, B. 2016. “Le charme discret of remnant movement: Crossing and nesting in Polish OVS sentences”. Studies in Polish Linguistics 11(3). 133–165.Search in Google Scholar
Williams, E. 1997. “Blocking and anaphora”. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 577–628.Search in Google Scholar
Willim, E. 1989. On word order: A Government and Binding study of English and Polish Kraków: Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.Search in Google Scholar
Witkoś, J. 2003. Movement and reconstruction: Questions and Principle C effects in English and Polish Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Witkoś, J. 2007. “Polish A-type scrambling”. In: Kosta, P. and L. Schürcks (eds.), Linguistic investigations into formal description of Slavic languages Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 165–180.Search in Google Scholar
Witkoś, J., P. Łęska, D. Dziubała-Szrejbrowska, A. Gogłoza and R. Meyer. 2018. “Datives and Accusatives as binders in a grammar of subject-oriented reflexives”. Paper presented at the Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL) 27 Conference, Stanford University, 04–06 May 2018.Search in Google Scholar
Witkoś et al. To appear. “Datives and Accusatives as binders in a grammar of subject-oriented reflexives”.Search in Google Scholar
Woolford, E. 1999. “More on the Anaphor Agreement Effect”. Linguistic Inquiry 30(2). 257–287.10.1162/002438999554057Search in Google Scholar
Zaenen, A. 1980. Extraction rules in Icelandic. (PhD dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.) [Published 1985 by Garland, New York.]Search in Google Scholar
Zaenen, A., J. Maling and H. Thráinsson. 1990. “Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive”. In: Maling, J. and A. Zaenen (eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 24. Modern Icelandic syntax San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 95–136.Search in Google Scholar
Żychliński, S. 2013. On some aspects of the syntax of Object Experiencers in Polish and English. (PhD dissertation, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań.)Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
