Post on 20-Dec-2015
transcript
Issues
• the semantic vs syntactic basis of control
• the unity of control and raising
• diachrony
• partial vs exhaustive control
• tense in control complements
• backwards control
Syntax vs semantics:two fallacies
i) a semantic account = a lexical account
ii) Structuralism vs eclecticism: if part of the answer is syntactic, it is better if all of the answer is syntactic
semantic ≠ lexical
[Culicover & Jackendoff provide] ‘a list of controllers coded by thematic role: some verbs are agent control verbs, others patient control … and so on. This reduces the theory of control to a lexical catalogue.’
[Hornstein & Boeckx 2003: 270]
eclecticism
The theory of control involves a number of different factors: structural configurations, intrinsic properties of verbs, other semantic and pragmatic considerations.
[Chomsky 1981: 78-79]
Structuralism vs eclecticism:a false dichotomy
“All agree that grammatical structure is part of any adequate approach to control. What distinguishes structuralists from eclectics is whether this information exhausts what is needed. All things being equal then, structuralism is preferable if attainable.”
Hornstein (2003: 26)
Semantics and control:two real issues
Does a controlled complement correspond to a property or a proposition?
How does the property/proposition contrast relate to the distinction between COMP and XCOMP?
Proposition vs Property
DalrympleHigginbothamHornstein LandauPollard & SagRosenbaumZec
Asudeh
Chierchia
Culicover & Jackendoff
Dowty
Jacobson
Montague
The Chierchia argument
a) Nando tries whatever Ezio tries
b) Ezio tries to jog at sunrise
c) ERGO: Nando tries to jog at sunrise
d) Entailment fails if complement of (b) is understood as the proposition Ezio jogs at sunrise rather than the property jog at sunrise
Dalrymple on Chierchia
Sloppy vs strict identity ambiguities are not always susceptible to this solution
Nando does whatever Ezio does
E broke his (=E’s) arm playing football
N broke his (=N’s) arm playing football
Arguments againstproperty-based analysis
Reflexive/reciprocal binding (cf above)
Wide scope/de re vs narrow scope/de dicto
Raising: both wide (de re)and narrow (de dicto) possible
A goblin seemed to pinch Gonzo
= i) (x seemed to be a goblin) &
(x pinched Gonzo)
= ii) (x is a goblin) &
(x seemed to pinch Gonzo)
Equi: only wide scope (de re)
A goblin tried to pinch Gonzo
≠ i) (x tried to be a goblin) &
(x pinched Gonzo)
= ii) (x is a goblin) &
(x tried to pinch Gonzo)
Asudeh’s account
seem and try both take XCOMP at f-structure Glue language distinguishes between the way the
semantic resources are consumed:
try : (try, leave) John
seem: (leave, John) seem
NB ‘Structure sharing is not necessarily at odds with resource-sensitivity.’ [Asudeh 2002: 18]
The paradox of seem
Semantically seem must take a proposition
Syntactically all agree seem takes XCOMP
Yet XCOMP intuitively maps to a property
Serbo-Croat (Zec 1987)
Petar je pokusao
Peter be.3SG try.PSTPRT
da dodje
COMP come.3SG.PRES
‘Peter tried to come’
Diachrony (Barron 2001)
Equi verbs become raising verbs by a gradual process (grammaticalization)
i) English promise, threaten
ii) ‘want’ in many langs > Future marker
Icelandic case preservation & raising
a) Drengina vantar matboys.def.acc lack.3sgpres food.acc‘The boys lack food’
b) Drengina vir∂istboys.def.acc seem.3sgpres vanta matlack.inf food.acc‘The boys seem to lack food’
Icelandic equi
c) Eg vonasttil a∂ vanta ekkiI.nom hope to lack not
efni í ritger∂ina material in thesis.def
‘I hope not to lack material for my thesis’
Control in Tagalog(Kroeger 1993)
Confirms validity of semantic approach to control à la Sag & Pollard (1991)
Same verb can trigger both f-control and a-control
f-control constructions defined over syntactic relations
a-control constructions defined over semantic relations
Partial vs exhaustive control
l a) The chair managed [PRO to gather the committee at 6]
l PRO = the chairl b) The chair preferred [PRO to gather
at 6]l PRO = the chair + the committeel
‘… one can already see how damaging the very existence of partial control is to the thesis “control is raising”. Simply put: there is no partial raising.’
[Landau 2003: 493, emphasis his]
Landau’s map of control
Obligatory Control Non-oblig Control
Restricted to complement (VP-internal) infinitives
In subject & adjunct
(VP-external) infinitives
Exhaustive Partial Long distance
Arbitrary
Tenseless Tensed PRO is a logophor
PRO is generic
Tense and control
‘an infinitival complement belongs to the PC class iff it is tensed’
[Landau 2000: 6]
PC vs EC verbs
[– tense]; exhaustive [+ tense]; partial
aspectual
(begin, continue, …)
desiderative
(want, prefer, …)
modal
(need, be able, …)
factive
(hate, regret, …)
implicative
(dare, manage, …)
propositional
(claim, believe, …)
interrogative
(wonder, ask, …)
PC and LFG
Partial control is a sub-case of anaphoric control
Separate TENSE features in main and embedded clause
An account (still to be developed) of the interaction of the two TENSE features
Bill said Sally would arrive late
€
PRED 'say <(SUBJ) (COMP)>'
SUBJ 'Bill'
TENSE present
COMP
PRED 'arrive <(SUBJ) >'
SUBJ 'Sally'
TENSE future
ADJ 'late'
⎡
⎣
⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢
⎤
⎦
⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥
⎡
⎣
⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢
⎤
⎦
⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥
Bill persuaded Sally on Tuesday to leave on Thursday
€
PRED 'persuade <(SUBJ) (OBJ) (COMP)
SUBJ 'Bill'
OBJ 'Sally'
TENSE past
ADJ 'on Tuesday'
COMP
PRED 'leave < (SUBJ) >'
SUBJ 'pro'
TENSE future
ADJ 'on Thursday'
⎡
⎣
⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢
⎤
⎦
⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥
⎡
⎣
⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢
⎤
⎦
⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥
Culicover & Jackendoff
free control (= non-obligatory control)
• arbitrary control
• long distance control nearly free control (= discourse control) unique control (= obligatory control)
Backward control (BC)
‘BC is a biclausal control configuration in which the lower coindexed subject is expressed and the thematic subject in the higher clause is unpronounced.’ [Polinsky & Potsdam 2002: 261]
Languages showing BC
Tsez, Bezhta, Tsaxur (Nakh-Daghestanian) Malagasy (Austronesian) Japanese Jacaltec (Mayan)
(and perhaps a few others)
Properties of BC languages
Languages with BC tend to have some/all the following properties:
verb at clause edge (VOS or SOV) BC occurs with aspectual verbs such verbs show control/raising ambiguity the effect is lexically specific
CONTROL[kid-ba ziya b-isr-a] y-oq-sigirl.II-ERG cow.III.ABS III-feed-INF II-begin-
PAST.EVIDRAISINGkid [ziya b-isr-a] y-oq-sigirl.II-ABS cow.III.ABS III-feed-INF II-begin-
PAST.EVID‘The girl began to feed the cow’
Evidence for BC
Clitic buy/yuy is restricted to 2nd position in the main clause
Raising structure:
girl.ABS yuy [cow feed] begin Control structure:
[girl.ERG cow feed] yuy begin
Theoretical implications of BC
‘… if our description of Tsez is on the right track, then it argues for a syntactic theory that permits BC. We suggest that a minimalist architecture in which movement may take place overtly or covertly in conjunction with a movement analysis of control … successfully accounts for BC.’
[Polinsky & Potsdam 2002: 277]
BC: movement vs non-movement
Structure sharing (cf reconstruction) f-command vs c-command The two verbs ‘begin’ in Tsez
begin 1 (raising): < (XCOMP)> (SUBJ)
begin 2 (equi): ??
begin 2
Two possibilities:
< (SUBJ) (XCOMP)> : but (SUBJ) is in the wrong place
< (SUBJ) (COMP)>: but violates f-command
Quantifiers in Tsez BC(Cormack & Smith 2004)
*[Each boy.ERG book read] begin
Each boy.ABS [book read] begin
i.e. BC is incompatible with wide scope readings
A further problem:control in Balinese
English
*To take the medicine was tried by me
Excluded because Adjunct cannot be a controller (Bresnan 1982)
What is the function of to take the medicine?
A further problem:control in Balinese
Balinese
[Ø-naar ubad ento]SUBJ tegarang tiangAV.eat medicine that OV.try 1PSG
Arka & Simpson (1998) assume a level of syntactic a-structure where tiang is a term. This circumvents the problem of how to get control into SUBJ.
Conclusions
Desirability of maintaining a unified account of obligatory control and raising
The LFG account extends naturally to cover new sorts of data, e.g backwards control
The LFG account offers insights not otherwise easily captured, e.g. property based view
BUT partial control effects suggest redrawing the boundary between f-control & a-control