LFG Winter School 2004

Control & Complementation revisited

Nigel Vincent

University of Manchester

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

Theory independence

Property Proposition

LFG Asudeh Dalrymple

Minimalism Hornstein Landau

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]

Scope & Asudeh’s account

Equi semantics only gives wide scope

Raising semantics allows both scopes

The paradox of seem

Semantically seem must take a proposition

Syntactically all agree seem takes XCOMP

Yet XCOMP intuitively maps to a property

Proposition/property & COMP/XCOMP

COMP XCOMP

Property look like try

Proposition say seem

Serbo-Croat (Zec 1987)

Petar je pokusao

Peter be.3SG try.PSTPRT

da dodje

COMP come.3SG.PRES

‘Peter tried to come’

Two arguments for the unity of equi & raising verbs

Diachrony

Cross-linguistic differences

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

[girl cow feed] beginSUBJ OBJ XCOMP <SUBJ, XCOMP>

S NP VP (SUBJ) = (XCOMP) =

SS V= =

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