Table Of ContentMovement Theory of Control
Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA)
Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) provides a platform for original monograph
studies into synchronic and diachronic linguistics. Studies in LA confront empirical
and theoretical problems as these are currently discussed in syntax, semantics,
morphology, phonology, and systematic pragmatics with the aim to establish robust
empirical generalizations within a universalistic perspective.
General Editors
Werner Abraham Elly van Gelderen
University of Vienna / Arizona State University
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
Advisory Editorial Board
Josef Bayer Christer Platzack
University of Konstanz University of Lund
Cedric Boeckx Ian Roberts
ICREA/Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Cambridge University
Guglielmo Cinque Lisa deMena Travis
University of Venice McGill University
Liliane Haegeman Sten Vikner
University of Ghent University of Aarhus
Hubert Haider C. Jan-Wouter Zwart
University of Salzburg University of Groningen
Terje Lohndal
University of Marylan d
Volume 154
Movement Theory of Control
Edited by Norbert Hornstein and Maria Polinsky
Movement Theory of Control
Edited by
Norbert Hornstein
University of Maryland
Maria Polinsky
Harvard University
John Benjamins Publishing Company
Amsterdam / Philadelphia
TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of
8
American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of
Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Movement theory of control / edited by Norbert Hornstein, Maria Polinsky.
p. cm. (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, issn 0166-0829 ; v. 154)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Control (Linguistics) 2. Generative grammar. 3. Grammar, Comparative and general--
Syntax. I. Hornstein, Norbert. II. Polinsky, Maria.
P299.C596M68 2010
414--dc22 2010000545
isbn 978 90 272 5537 2 (Hb ; alk. paper)
isbn 978 90 272 8833 2 (Eb)
© 2010 – John Benjamins B.V.
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any
other means, without written permission from the publisher.
John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands
John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa
Table of contents
Abbreviations vii
Control as movement: Across languages and constructions 1
Norbert Hornstein & Maria Polinsky
part i. Expanding the movement analysis of control
Movement Theory of Control and CP-infinitives in Polish 45
Jacek Witkoś
Obligatory control and local reflexives:
Copies as vehicles for de se readings 67
Norbert Hornstein & Paul Pietroski
No objections to Backward Control 89
Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou,
Gianina Iordăchioaia & Mihaela Marchis
Possessor raising through thematic positions 119
Cilene Rodrigues
part ii. Unexplored control phenomena
Clitic climbing in archaic Chinese: Evidence for the movement
analysis of control 149
Edith Aldridge
Framing the syntax of control in Japanese (and English) 183
Stanley Dubinsky & Shoko Hamano
Split control and t he Principle of Minimal Distance 211
Tomohiro Fujii
Towards a typology of control in DP 245
Ivy Sichel
part iii. Beyond control
The argument structure of evaluative adjectives:
A case of pseudo-raising 269
Laura Kertz
vi Movement Theory of Control
Object control in Korean: A backward control impostor 299
Nayoung Kwon, Philip J. Monahan & Maria Polinsky
Index 329
Abbreviations
ATB Across the Board LDA Long Distance Agreement
BC Backward Control LF Logical Form
BP Brazilian Portuguese MDP Minimal Distance
BR Backward Raising Principle (= PMD)
CED Condition on Extraction MLC Minimal Link Condition
Domains MTC Movement Theory
CI interface Conceptual-Intentional of Control
Interface NOC Non-obligatory Control
DS Deep Structure NPI Negative Polarity Item
EC Exhaustive Control OC Obligatory Control
ECM Exceptional Case Marking PC Partial Control
ECP Empty Category Principle PF Phonetic Form
EPP Extended Projection PIC Phase Impenetrability
Principle Condition
FC Forward Control PMD Principle of Minimal
GB Government-Binding Distance (= MDP)
theory RtoO Raising to Object
GoN Genitive of Negation SOA State of affairs
IFM Indirect Feature-driven UG Universal Grammar
Movement UTAH Universal Theta
LBR Locally Bound Reflexives Assignment Hypothesis
LCS Lexical-Conceptual
Structure
Control as movement
Across languages and constructions*
Norbert Hornstein & Maria Polinsky
University of Maryland & Harvard University
1. Preliminaries
Since the earliest days of generative grammar, explaining the properties of control
constructions has been at the center of linguistic enterprise. A central feature of most
generative accounts has been to make a principled distinction between the derivation
of control clauses such as (1a) and raising sentences like (1d). In control construc-
tions, DPs appear to bear more than a single θ-role. For example in (1a), John is inter-
preted as being both the “trier” and the “kisser.” In the raising clause (1d), in contrast,
John has just the “kisser” θ-role as seem does not assign a θ-role to its subject.
(1) a. John tried to kiss the Portuguese water dog
b. [John tried [John to kiss the Portuguese water dog]]
c. [John tried [[ e] to kiss the Portuguese water dog]]
1 NP 1
d. [John seemed [[ e] to kiss the Portuguese water dog]]
1 NP 1
There have been a number of theories of control through the history of Generative
Grammar. The Standard Theory analyzed (1a) as a derived sentence which arises
when the rule of Equi deletes the lower instance of John. Government-Binding
theory (GB) analyzed (1a) as (1c); the [ e] element (dubbed ‘PRO’) being a base-
NP
generated empty category anaphorically dependent on John. Raising structures in
both former accounts proposed that John in (1d) was not base-generated there,
but came to occupy the matrix subject position via movement.1 The Movement
Theory of Contro l (MTC) shares features with each of these earlier accounts of
*We are grateful to Edith Aldridge, Phil Monahan, Hazel Pearson, Eric Potsdam, Ivy Sichel,
and Barbara Stiebels for helpful discussions of this chapter. We regret that we have not been
able to take into account all their excellent recommendations, and we are solely responsible
for all the errors and oversights in this work.
1. In theories with Deep Structure levels this derivational difference sufficed to explain a host
of empirical differences between the two constructions. For discussion see Hornstein (2001)
and Boeckx, Hornstein & Nunes (forthcoming).
Norbert Hornstein & Maria Polinsky
control, but differs from them in one important way. All earlier approaches to
this construction analyzed control as a non-movement dependency. The MTC
would not be so called if it shared this feature. Indeed, it rests on the assumption
that control is like raising in that the dependency between John and its base posi-
tion in both (1a) and (1d) is mediated by movement, albeit the derivation of the
control sentence (1a) involves movement to a θ-position (and so control will
involve dependencies between θ-positions), while the derivation of the raising
clause (1d) does not (and so raising configurations will involve dependencies
between θ and non-θ positions).2 However, as we review below, in most other ways,
the MTC is a direct descendant of these earlier theories of control and shares
with them the theoretical intuition that the properties of control constructions
arise from the basic properties of Universal Grammar (UG) and thus reveal its
fundamental architecture.
As noted, the Movement Theory of Control (MTC) makes one essential claim.
It is that movement mediates the control relation. Thus, if α controls β, then move-
ment relates α with β. To make this claim more specific, it is necessary to specify what
α and β are, what kind of movement relates them, and what one takes movement to
be. Consider some options.
The standard MTC assumes the following: α is a θ-marked DP, β is a DP copy
that also bears a θ-role, the relevant movement is A-movement, and movement
is understood as in the Copy Theory of Movement (Chomsky 1993), where
movement creates two representations of an element, later deleting one of them.
(2) illustrates the MTC so understood.
(2) John tried [John to kiss Mary]
Note that even here, there are many options still left unspecified. For example, (2)
leaves out the structure of the embedded clause. Is John θ-marked in Spec v of the
embedded clause? Given current assumptions the answer is most likely that it is.
So a more accurate version of John tried to kiss Mary would be (3). The status of
the embedded argument (John) depends on one’s views concerning the EPP as it
applies to non-finite clauses (Castillo, Dury & Grohmann 1999; Epstein & Seely
2006). If you like the EPP, then there is a copy in Spec T. If not, not.
(3) [John [past] [John v [try [(John) to [John v [kiss Mary]]]]]]
Another version of the MTC would represent the control relation as (4):
(4) [John [past] [John v [try [PRO to [PRO v [kiss Mary]]]]]]
. Here we concentrate on control and no longer contrast it with raising. Hornstein 2001
and Boeckx, Hornstein & Nunes (forthcoming) discuss the relations between the two more
extensively.
