Class Note for LINGUIST 601 at UMass(5)
Class Note for LINGUIST 601 at UMass(5)
Popular in Course
Popular in Department
This 7 page Class Notes was uploaded by an elite notetaker on Friday February 6, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to a course at University of Massachusetts taught by a professor in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 25 views.
Reviews for Class Note for LINGUIST 601 at UMass(5)
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 02/06/15
Introduction to Transformational Grammar LlNGUlST 601 November 30 2006 In nitival Complementation 1 Control So far we have looked more or less exclusively at finite clauses We now turn our attention to infinitival clauses We will look at the following three cases 1 a Control the subject of the infinitival is a null pronoun called PRO David tried PRO to dance PRO to dance with David is fun b Raising the subject of the infinitival moves to a higher subject position Makotoi appears ti to be happy Ioeyi seems ti to be exhausted c ECM the subject of the infinitival is an overt NP I believe Angela to be innocent Minjoo wants him to stay 1 PRO and Control 2 a Dave tried to write a paper about causatives b Iunko decided to visit UMass in December c Bernhard plans to teach a seminar in the Fall 0 The embedding predicate is a two place predicate someone who triesdecidesplans some thing and something that is trieddecidedplanned o The infinitival clause cannot have an overt subject 3 a Dave tried Dave to write a paper about causatives b Iunko decided Iunko to visit UMass in December c Bernhard plans Bernhard to teach a seminar in the Fall 11 Some motivation for PRO Given our assumptions about Oroles and the EFF we need to assume that there is a null subject in the infinitival clauses under discussion What could this subjectbe Some null DPs 4 a DPtracecopies of DPs that we do not pronounce b m a null pronoun that needs case c PRO a null pronoun that does not need case 0 An important theoretical consideration 5 Ocriterion An argument DP must receive a Orole and may receive only one 6role The only one Orole requirement rules out movement and hence DPtracescopies of DPs in the infinitival subject in the infinitival subject position mcould be a possibility see Borer 1989 butm as generally conceptualized can only appear in positions where it can get case and where overt DPs may also appear If we keep to the only one O role part of the 6criterion we need to postulate a new kind of entity a null pronoun called PRO which can satisfy the EPP requirement receive a Orole and which does not need case 6 a Iunkoi decided PROZ to visit UMass in December b Fred promised Alex PROZ to finish his paper by Monday c Fred persuaded Alex PROZ to finish her paper by Monday The co indexing indicates what DP controls the PRO If the proposal that this relationship is essentially a semantic one is correct then these indices do not need to be represented in the syntax As always once we postulate a null entity we have to make sure that it appears only where we want it to appear This will be an important aspect of our discussion 12 Control as Raising Control and Raising are generally taken to involve different modules of the grammar control theory and movement respectively Control Theory however remains poorly understood and there has been an active line of work originating in Hornstein 1999 which tries to derive Control via movement To derive Control via movement the only one Orole part of the 6criterion must be given up Note that deriving Control via Movement is not the same thing as saying that Raising and Con trol are the same There is no denying that there are many many properties on which control constructions differ from raising constructions Landau 2003 suggests that since control constructions are very different from raising construc tions we want to keep the derivation of the two distinct In their reply to Landau 2003 Boeckx and Hornstein 2004 point out that there are in fact certain parallels between control and raising and claim that the nonparallels can be derived from independent differences between raising and control 13 Different Kinds of Control Control construction can be subdivided along several dimensions Some of these subclasses seem more amenable to a movement analysis than others 131 Subject vs Object Control 7 Ditransitive control predicates a subject control Fred promised Alex to finish his paper by Monday b object control Fred persuaded Alex to finish her paper by Monday There are many object control predicates but very few subject control predicates This has led some researchers to propose a Minimal Distance Principle which forces object control cf Rosen baum 1967 MDFviolating subject control is taken to involve a special structure where the Minimal Distance Principle is in fact respected cf Larson 1991 The conclusion most other researchers have reached is that while the availability of a control relationship is a property of the syntax the exact identity of the controller subject vs object follows from the semantics of the embedding predicate cf Dowty 1985 Culicover and Jack endoff 2001 Iackendoff and Culicover 2003 among others The intuition expressed by Dowty is that there could not be a verb that had the same meaning as promise but which was object control and vice versa Facts from acquisition add an additional twist to this discussion MDP violating subject control verbs like promise seem to be acquired much later see Boeckx and Horn stein 2003 132 Obligatory Arbitrary and Optional Control Most of the cases of control seen so far involve obligatory control ie the subject of the infinitival clause can only be interpreted as dependent on an argument of the embedding predicate for its interpretation 8 Obligatory Control a lnfinitival nonwhComplements i Angela tried to disinvite him ii Fred promised Alex to finish his paper by Monday iii Fred persuaded Alex to finish her paper by Monday b lnfinitival Adjuncts i Andre read Rushdie s article about Coetzee to make a presentation in his class ii Roumi went to Tromsoe to talk to Sylvia Not all instances of control are obligatory in some cases the PRO seems to lack an obvious controller1 and takes on a genericarbitrary interpretation these cases are referred to as FROaTb 1But see Epstein 1984 and Bhatt and Izvorski 1997 who argue that even in these cases there is an implicit controller Arbitrary control is diagnosed by its ability to bind oneself and the availability of a paraphrase that involves the pronoun 9 Arbitrary Control a unique argument of embedding predicate i PROarb to walk along Paradise Pond in the Fall is fun ii PROmb to behave oneself in public is important iii It is not allowed PROarb to perjure oneself b part of a whCP i Minjoo knows how PROM to behave oneself in public ii Tim wonders how PROM to protect oneself from creditors In some cases such as when the infinitival clause is embedded in a whCP arbitrary control is not the only option 10 optional control a Minjooi knows how PRO to behave herself in public b Tim wonders how PRO to protect himself from creditors For obvious reasons these cases are referred to as involving optional control Landau 2000Landau 2003 makes a further distinction noting that the PRO subject of initial adjuncts can be interpreted as nonarbitrary and yet not controlled by the matrix subject 11 NonObligatory Control NOC a Mary was baf ed Even after PRO revealing her innermost feelings Iohn remained untouched b Mary lost track of John because PROM having been angry at each otherm he had gone one way and she another c Having PRO just arrived in town the main hotel seemed to Bill to be the best place to stay He argues that the whinfinitival cases of arbitrary control are really special cases of partial control and should not be mixed with cases of NOC like the above In the whinfinitival cases even the arbitrary PRO must include the subject in its reference True disjoint reference is not allowed 12 a John wondered who PRO to introduce his fiancee himi to b John asked how PRO to talk to Mary himi about oneself 133 Partial vs Exhaustive Control There is also a class of cases where the matrix predicate provides only part of the reference of the subject of the infinitival clause see Landau 2000 for details 13 Partial Control We thought that a Hei wanted PROPr to meet in the lobbydo the dishes together b The chairi preferred PROFr to gather at 6 0 Billi regretted PROFr meeting without a concrete agenda P Maryi wondered whether PROFr to apply together Other predicates do not allow partial control 14 a Bevi began PROFr to do the dishes together b The chairi managed PROi to gather at 6 134 Implicit Control The controller of PRO can be an implicit argument ie an argument that does not seem to be syntactically projected Languages differ in the extent to which they allow for implicit arguments to control a PROZ 15 Unaccusative vs Passives a No implicit argument No Control quot The shipi sank PROZ to collect the insurance b lmplicit agent Control The ship was sunk PROZ to collect the insurance 16 lmplicit accusatives vs lmplicit datives a lmplicit Accusatives This leads onei PROZ to draw the following conclusion b Implicit Datives Iohn said shouted to the Visitorsi PROZ to return later Unlike English both are good in Italian See Rizzi 1986 2There is a generalization called Ba chs Generalization according to which object controllers may not be omitted Bachs Generalization holds as long we restrict ourself to accusa ve object controllers Da ve object controllers may be implicit 14 Some Properties of Control Constructions Setting aside cases of NOC For that see Landau 2001 o The controller can never be an expletive 17 a Therei tried PROZ to annoy David b lti hopes PROZ to win with expletive it This is a definitional property of control 0 The PRO is always a subject 18 a Hei tried PROZ to annoy David b Hei tried David to annoy PROi c Hei tried PROZ to be annoyed at David 0 The controller of PRO needs to be an argument of the predicate to which the infinitival clause is attached 19 a Hei thinks that Ij tried PROMj to annoy David b Hei thinks that lj persuaded Mildredk PROM c to leave 20 ccommand follows from argument requirement and the fact that the clausal complement is the innermost argument a Hisi parentsj tried PROMj to annoy David b L persuaded Mildredj s motherk PROM c to leave 0 PRO cannot be a real expletive 21 a For Mary to dance would be fun b PRO to dance is fun c For there to be a party tonight would be fun d PRprl to be a party tonight would be fun e For it to seem that Mary is a nonsmoker she will have to get new rugs f PRprl to seem that Mary is a nonsmoker she will have to get new rugs 22 from Lasnik 1992244 a There having been a robbery there was an investigation b There was a crime without there being a victim c PROZ having witnessed the robbery Iohni aided the investigators P Harryi was a witness without PROZ being a victim But PRO can function as weather pseudoambient it 23 a It can hail without it snowing b It can hail without PRO snowing References Bhatt R and R lzvorski 1997 Genericity Implicit Arguments and Control paper presented at SClL V11 available at ftplingupennedustudentpapersbhattPROarbps Boeckx C and N Hornstein 2003 Reply to Control is not Movement Linguistic lnguiry 342 2697280 Boeckx C and N Hornstein 2004 Movement under Control Linguistic lnguiry353 431452 Borer H 1989 Anaphoric AGR in O Iaeggli and K Safir eds The Null Subject Parameter Kluwer Dordrecht 697109 Culicover P W and R Iackendoff 2001 Control is not Movement Linguistic lnguiry 323 4937512 Dowty D 1985 On recent analyses of the semantics of control Linguistics and Philosophy 8 2917331 Epstein S D 1984 Quantifierm and the LE Representation of PROarb Linguistic lnguiry 153 4997505 Hornstein N 1999 Movement and Control Linguistic Inguiry 301 6996 Iackendoff R and P W Culicover 2003 The Semantic Basis of Control in English Language 793 5177556 Landau l 2000 Elements of Control Structure and Meaning in lnfinitival Constructions Kluwer Dordrecht Landau l 2001 Control and Extraposition The Case of SuperEqui Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 191 1097152 Landau l 2003 Movement out of control Linguistic lnguiry 343 471498 Larson R 1991 Promise and the theory of control Linguistic lnguigy 221 1037139 Lasnik H 1992 Two Notes on Control and Binding in R K Larson S latridou U Lahiri and Higginbotham eds Control and Grammar Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 48 Kluwer Academic Publishers Dordrecht Reidel 2357252 Rizzi L 1986 Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of m Linguistic lnguiry 173 5017558 Rosenbaum P 1967 The grammar of English predicate complement constructions MIT Press Cambridge MA
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'