Cover not available

In:Variation within and across Romance Languages: Selected papers from the 41st Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Ottawa, 5–7 May 2011
Edited by Marie-Hélène Côté and Eric Mathieu
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 333] 2014
► pp. 255–274

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

When control can’t be a fact

 | The Pennsylvania State University
Published online: 17 December 2014
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.333.17ree
This paper shows that linguistic theory presently fails to offer a non-stipulative account of what appears to be a universal gap in simple Control complementation with a substantial class of verbs. The author attributes this to the denotational type of the complement clause selected by such verbs interacting with the manner in which an index of evaluation is set up in tenseless contexts. Specifically, the author proposes that (a) this class of verbs selects Possible Fact-denoting complements – complements whose truth is indeterminate and (b) simple Control clauses (like ECM and small clause complements) are tenseless; therefore, their index of evaluation must be lexically determined by the matrix verb (which precludes Possible Facts). Given this, Possible Facts must independently set up an index of evaluation via inflection of I for tense – fully inflected Is are well known to be associated with Nominative Case, precluding Control.
References (36)
References
Asher, Nicholas. 1993. Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. “Events, Facts, Propositions, and Evolutive Anaphora”. Speaking of Events ed. by James Higginbotham, Fabio Pianesi & Achille Varzi, 123–150. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1981. “On Time, Tense, and Aspect: An essay in English metaphysics”. Radical Pragmatics ed. by Peter Cole, 62–81. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 1996. “Selection and the Categorial Status of Infinitival Complements”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14.269–304. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. “The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation: An economy approach”. Minimalist Syntax: The essential readings ed. by Željko Bošković & Howard Lasnik, 86–111. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. “Control and Complementation”. Linguistic Inquiry 13.343–434.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1985. “Formal Semantics and the Grammar of Predication”. Linguistic Inquiry 16.417–443.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter & Wendy Wilkins. 1986. “Control, PRO, and the Projection Principle”. Language 62.120–153.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1985. “On Recent Analyses of the Semantics of Control”. Linguistics & Philosophy 8.291–331. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fine, Kit. 1981. “First Order Modal Theories”. Studia Logica 39.159–200. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald. 1982. “Phrase Structure Grammar”. The Nature of Syntactic Representation ed. by Pauline Jacobson & Geoffrey Pullum, 131–186. Dordrecht: Reidel. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. “Movement and Control”. Linguistic Inquiry 30.69–96. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 1969. “Some Observations on Tense and Deixis in English”. Language 45.777–806. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray & Peter Culicover. 2003. “The Semantic Basis of Control in English”. Language 79.517–556. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1971. “Implicative Verbs”. Language 47.340–358. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul & Carol Kiparsky. 1970. “Fact”. Progress in Linguistics ed. by Manfred Bierwisch & Karl Erich Heidolph, 143–173. Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klein, Ewan & Ivan Sag. 1982. “Semantic Type and Control”. Developments in Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar ed. by Michael Barlow, Daniel Flickinger & Ivan Sag. Stanford Working Papers in Grammatical Theory 2.1–25. Stanford, Cal.: Department of Linguistics, Stanford University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1987. “Nominal Reference and Temporal Constitution: Towards a semantics of quantity”. FNS Bericht 17, Forschungstelle für Natürliche Sprachliche Systeme,Universität Tübingen.
. 1989. Nominal Refrernenz und Zetikonstitution. München: Whilhem Fink Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2004. “The Scale of Finiteness and the Calculus of Control”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22.811–877. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Link, Godehard. 1983. “The Logical Analysis of Plural and Mass Terms: A lattice-theoretical approach”. Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language ed. by Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze & Arnim von Stechow, 302–323. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita & Anna Roussou. 2000. “A Minimalist Theory of A-movement and Control”. Lingua 110.409–447. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, Roger. 1992. On the Feature Content and Distribution of PRO. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
. 2001. “Null Case and the Distribution of PRO”. Linguistic Inquiry 32.141–166. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Melnik, Nurit. 2007. “Extending Partial pro-drop in Modern Hebrew: A comprehensive analysis”. Proceedings of the HPSG07 Conference . Stanford: CSLI Publications. [URL].
Montague, Richard. 1974. “The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English”. Formal Philosophy ed. by Richard Thomason. 247–270. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Neil, John. 1995. “Out of Control”. In Proceedings of the 25th Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society ed. by Jill Beckman, vol. 1, 361–371. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peterson, Philip. 1997. Fact Proposition Event. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 2004. Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reed, Lisa. 2012. “A Semantic Constraint on Tenseless Clausal Complementation”. Studia Linguistica 66.286–321. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Strengthening the PRO Hypothesis. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Sag, Ivan & Carl Pollard. 1991. “An Integrated Theory of Complement Control”. Language 67.63–113. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim. 1982. “The Tense of Infinitives”. Linguistic Inquiry 13.561–570.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
ter Meulen, Alice. 1984. “Events, Quantities, and Individuals”. Varieties of Formal Semantics ed. by Fred Landman & Frank Veltman, 259–280. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue