LFG Winter School 2004

1. LFG Winter School 2004 Control & Complementation revisited Nigel Vincent University of Manchester

2. 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

3. Syntax vs semantics:two fallacies • a semantic account = a lexical account • Structuralism vs eclecticism: if part of the answer is syntactic, it is better if all of the answer is syntactic

4. 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]

5. 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]

6. 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)

7. 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?

8. Dalrymple Higginbotham Hornstein Landau Pollard & Sag Rosenbaum Zec Asudeh Chierchia Culicover & Jackendoff Dowty Jacobson Montague Proposition vs Property

9. Theory independence

10. The Chierchia argument • Nando tries whatever Ezio tries • Ezio tries to jog at sunrise • ERGO: Nando tries to jog at sunrise • Entailment fails if complement of (b) is understood as the proposition Ezio jogs at sunrise rather than the property jog at sunrise

11. 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

12. Arguments againstproperty-based analysis • Reflexive/reciprocal binding (cf above) • Wide scope/de re vs narrow scope/de dicto

13. 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)

14. 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)

15. 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]

16. Scope & Asudeh’s account • Equi semantics only gives wide scope • Raising semantics allows both scopes

17. The paradox of seem • Semantically seem must take a proposition • Syntactically all agree seem takes XCOMP • Yet XCOMP intuitively maps to a property

18. Proposition/property & COMP/XCOMP

19. Serbo-Croat (Zec 1987) Petar je pokusao Peter be.3SG try.PSTPRT da dodje COMP come.3SG.PRES ‘Peter tried to come’

20. Two arguments for the unity of equi & raising verbs • Diachrony • Cross-linguistic differences

21. Diachrony (Barron 2001) • Equi verbs become raising verbs by a gradual process (grammaticalization) i) English promise, threaten ii)‘want’ in many langs > Future marker

22. Icelandic case preservation & raising a) Drengina vantar mat boys.def.acc lack.3sgpres food.acc ‘The boys lack food’ b) Drengina vir∂ist boys.def.acc seem.3sgpres vanta mat lack.inf food.acc ‘The boys seem to lack food’

23. Icelandic equi c) Eg vonast til a∂ vanta ekki I.nom hope to lack not efni í ritger∂ina material in thesis.def ‘I hope not to lack material for my thesis’

24. 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

25. Partial vs exhaustive control • a) The chair managed [PRO to gather the committee at 6] • PRO = the chair • b) The chair preferred [PRO to gather at 6] • PRO = the chair + the committee

26. ‘… 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]

27. Landau’s map of control

28. Tense and control ‘an infinitival complement belongs to the PC class iff it is tensed’ [Landau 2000: 6]

29. PC vs EC verbs

30. 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

31. Bill said Sally would arrive late

32. Bill persuaded Sally on Tuesday to leave on Thursday

33. Culicover & Jackendoff • free control (= non-obligatory control) • arbitrary control • long distance control • nearly free control (= discourse control) • unique control (= obligatory control)

34. 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]

35. Languages showing BC • Tsez, Bezhta, Tsaxur (Nakh-Daghestanian) • Malagasy (Austronesian) • Japanese • Jacaltec (Mayan) (and perhaps a few others)

36. 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

37. CONTROL [kid-ba ziya b-isr-a] y-oq-si girl.II-ERG cow.III.ABS III-feed-INF II-begin- PAST.EVID RAISING kid [ziya b-isr-a] y-oq-si girl.II-ABS cow.III.ABS III-feed-INF II-begin- PAST.EVID ‘The girl began to feed the cow’

38. 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

39. 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]

40. 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): ??

41. begin 2 Two possibilities: < (SUBJ) (XCOMP)> : but (SUBJ) is in the wrong place < (SUBJ) (COMP)>: but violates f- command

42. [girl cow feed] begin SUBJ OBJ XCOMP <SUBJ, XCOMP> S  NP VP (SUBJ) =  (XCOMP) = S  S V = =

43. 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

44. 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?

45. A further problem:control in Balinese • Balinese [Ø-naar ubad ento]SUBJ tegarang tiang AV.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.

46. 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