It awaits you to

[raymondaliasapollyon]

But for native speakers they will not refer to the same person except in rather unusual contexts.

The original golf course sentence does not have a problem.

You are seeing problems where none exist.

Any slightest awkwardness is a problem and calls for an explanation. Is the original golf sentence perfectly acceptable?
One native speaker acknowledges the "it" refers to the golf course, but more significantly, he says the sentence should be broken off at "at a challenging but extremely fun course." That operation removes the Binding Condition C violation, if that's what makes the sentence awkward.

It awaits you to

In the following sentence, what does the "it" refer to? Is it a dummy subject that refers to the infinitival phrase "to test your golfing abilities at a challenging but extremely fun

ell.stackexchange.com

 

[5jj]

One native speaker acknowledges the "it" refers to the golf course,

I told you that in post #2 of this thread.

That operation removes the Binding Condition C violation, if that's what makes the sentence awkward.

There is no binding condition C violation.

We ask members not to post questions in different forums at the same time. It is frustrating to spend time on a response only to find out the question has received responses elsewhere. I don't like wasting my time, so I'll leave you to the good folk at the other forum.

 

[jutfrank]

The more I think about this, the more convinced I am that this is a dummy subject. Like raymondaliasapollyon, I can't make sense of how the infinitival phrase is working if the reference of it is the golf course.

My sense is that the writer was trying to use a pattern along the lines of a much more familiar pattern: It awaits to be seen whether ..., where it clearly is a dummy. The problematic thing about the OP sentence in my view is the use of you as object of awaits. I think that's what's leading to a non-dummy analysis. I'm now leaning towards saying that the sentence is ungrammatical.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

The more I think about this, the more convinced I am that this is a dummy subject. Like raymondaliasapollyon, I can't make sense of how the infinitival phrase is working if the reference of it is the golf course.

My sense is that the writer was trying to use a pattern along the lines of a much more familiar pattern: It awaits to be seen whether ..., where it clearly is a dummy. The problematic thing about the OP sentence in my view is the use of you as object of awaits. I think that's what's leading to a non-dummy analysis. I'm now leaning towards saying that the sentence is ungrammatical.

You are the second native to regard the "it" as a dummy, and the third to acknowledge a Binding Condition C violation.
For those who regard the original sentence as perfectly natural, the outstanding question is how to explain the apparent absence of a Binding Condition C violation while recognizing one in the Mike sentence at the same time.

 

[Tdol]

You may be able to come up with a weird sentence that is technically OK, but try coming up with a natural one with a dummy subject here. It awaits you to prove yourself may not be grammatically 100% wrong, and that's a matter of opinion, but it's garbage, and that's almost certainly a matter of fact.

 

[jutfrank]

You are the second native to regard the "it" as a dummy, and the third to acknowledge a Binding Condition C violation.

What violation? I don't acknowledge any violation. To me, the reference is clear enough that the infinitival phrase to test your golfing abilities at a challenging but extremely fun course is the postcedent of it. (It isn't the course that awaits you but the test.)

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

What violation? I don't acknowledge any violation. To me, the reference is clear enough that the infinitival phrase to test your golfing abilities at a challenging but extremely fun course is the postcedent of it. (It isn't the course that awaits you but the test.)

You acknowldege the violation if the "it" refers to "a challenging but extremely fun course."
That is, on the analysis whereby the "it" refers to the course, there would be a violation of the said condition. That's why you lean toward treating the "it" as a dummy instead.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

You may be able to come up with a weird sentence that is technically OK, but try coming up with a natural one with a dummy subject here. It awaits you to prove yourself may not be grammatically 100% wrong, and that's a matter of opinion, but it's garbage, and that's almost certainly a matter of fact.

On the analysis whereby the "it" refers to "the crazy golf in Camden," does the OP sentence sound perfectly natural as it is? Would its acceptability improve if "at a challenging but extremely fun course" were removed?

P.S. I started a similar thread in the Linguistics forum because probus suggested that I do so.

 

[jutfrank]

You acknowldege the violation if the "it" refers to "a challenging but extremely fun course."

No, I don't think that at all. The it is the testing of your skills. The preposition phrase at a challenging but extremely fun course is the place where you do it.

What's your interpretation of all this, raymondaliasapollyon? You haven't made it quite clear.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

No, I don't think that at all. The it is the testing of your skills. The preposition phrase at a challenging but extremely fun course is the place where you do it.

What's your interpretation of all this, raymondaliasapollyon? You haven't made it quite clear.

I should have capitalized the "if" and turned the sentence into a counterfactual conditional.
You don't allow the "it" to refer to the golf course precisely because if you did, there would be a Condition C violation in your mental grammar. So that reading is ruled out and you take the "it" as a dummy instead referring to the testing of your golfing abilities.

 

[jutfrank]

I should have capitalized the "if" and turned the sentence into a counterfactual conditional.

It's just that in post #24 you said that I was the third person to acknowledge a binding condition violation. I don't acknowledge one, so I wanted to make that clear.

You don't allow the "it" to refer to the golf course precisely because if you did, there would be a Condition C violation in your mental grammar.

There's some kind of violation, yes, but I can't yet see how it's a binding condition one. Would you try to explain this, please? What exactly do you think is bound, or not bound, to what?

So that reading is ruled out and you take the "it" as a dummy instead referring to the testing of your golfing abilities.

I don't think I agree with this, but you might be able to convince me if you try.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

It's just that in post #24 you said that I was the third person to acknowledge a binding condition violation. I don't acknowledge one, so I wanted to make that clear.



There's some kind of violation, yes, but I can't yet see how it's a binding condition one. Would you try to explain this, please? What exactly do you think is bound, or not bound, to what?



I don't think I agree with this, but you might be able to convince me if you try.

If you draw a tree diagram for " it awaits you to test your golfing abilities at a challenging but extremely fun course." you'll see the "it" c-commands the R-expression "a challenging but extremely fun course." Hence the Binding Condition C violation.

The standard formulation of Binding Condition C: An R-expression must not be bound (i.e., c-commanded by a coreferential expression).

 

[jutfrank]

Okay, I think I finally understand what you mean. You're thinking of it as bound to the NP a challenging but extremely fun course, which is co-referential with the NP The crazy golf in Camden, which is glossed as 'the crazy golf course in Camden'.

Have I understood you?

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

Okay, I think I finally understand what you mean. You're thinking of it as bound to the NP a challenging but extremely fun course, which is co-referential with the NP The crazy golf in Camden, which is glossed as 'the crazy golf course in Camden'.

Have I understood you?

For the "it" to refer to "a challenging but extremely fun course," the latter would be bound by the former, leading to the said violation.

 

[jutfrank]

I've lost the focus of the thread somewhat. What's your goal here?

Is your point that a reading of it='The crazy golf (course) in Camden' is not possible due to a violation of a binding condition? If that's what you mean, then surely it's on you to explain how it is that some members really are reading it like that. Isn't the fact that some members feel this way precisely the kind of evidence that disproves your theory?

Please clarify what the point of the thread is and what exactly you'd like to know. Thanks.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

I've lost the focus of the thread somewhat. What's your goal here?

Is your point that a reading of it='The crazy golf (course) in Camden' is not possible due to a violation of a binding condition? If that's what you mean, then surely it's on you to explain how it is that some members really are reading it like that. Isn't the fact that some members feel this way precisely the kind of evidence that disproves your theory?

Please clarify what the point of the thread is and what exactly you'd like to know. Thanks.

I'm investigating whether taking the "it" as referring to the golf course is perfectly natural. One test is to remove the "at a challenging but extremely fun course" and see if the acceptability improves. If it does, then there'a a Binding Condition violation, if a faint one, in the OP sentence. The test would require judgments furnished by native speakers who take the "it" to refer to the golf course in the first place.

Saying the "it" in the OP sentence refers to the golf course is different from saying the sentence is perfectly natural. People could take a particular interpretation even when a sentence is not perfectly natural.

I indicated my request for such information in a previous post, but it has been removed somehow.

 

[jutfrank]

I'm investigating whether taking the "it" as referring to the golf course is perfectly natural.

What do you mean by 'natural'? Grammatical?

One test is to remove the "at a challenging but extremely fun course" and see if the acceptability improves.

I don't think that makes any difference. I think the it is 'the testing your golf skills'. The PP you quote above is just an adjunct to the infinitival clause, saying where the testing takes place.

Where do you yourself stand on this?

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

What do you mean by 'natural'? Grammatical?



I don't think that makes any difference. I think the it is 'the testing your golf skills'. The PP you quote above is just an adjunct to the infinitival clause, saying where the testing takes place.

Where do you yourself stand on this?

I tend to think grammaticality follows naturalness. The former is a construct by linguists, and whether a sentence is grammatical may well depend on particular grammars. On the other hand, naturalness is the basis of grammaticality, and is a relatively theory-neutral concept.

Removal of the PP makes a difference, as the PP contains the R-expression that would be bound by the c-commanding "it." The removal renders the sentence irrelevant to the violation. (Recall the standard formualtion of Binding Condition C.)

Let me stress again that the test is applicable only to those who treat the "it" as referring to the golf course.

 

[Phaedrus]

The crazy golf in Camden has been rebuilt recently and it awaits you to test your golfing abilities at a challenging but extremely fun course.

I'm strongly inclined to revise that sentence as follows:

The crazy golf course in Camden, recently rebuilt to test your golfing abilities in a challenging but extremely fun way, awaits you.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

I'm strongly inclined to revise that sentence as follows:

The crazy golf course in Camden, recently rebuilt to test your golfing abilities in a challenging but extremely fun way, awaits you.

Exactly what part of the OP sentence do you find odd? I'm curious.