Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:55:23.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Control into infinitival relatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2018

JAMIE DOUGLAS
JAMIE DOUGLAS*
Affiliation:
Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, University of Cambridge, Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA, UKjad71@cam.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article focuses on a novel English construction involving control and infinitival relatives. Examples such as this is John's book to read have a head noun (book) modified by an infinitival relative clause (to read) and a prenominal possessor (John's). I argue that there is a control relation between the prenominal possessor and the PRO subject of the infinitival relative. I show that this control relation bears the structural hallmarks of obligatory control whilst at the same time permitting PRO to be interpreted as arbitrary. I discuss these empirical facts in the context of a syntactic, Agree-based theory of control.

Keywords

controlinfinitival relative clauseprenominal possessorPRO
Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , June 2019 , pp. 469 - 494
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abney, Steven Paul. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Haegeman, Liliane & Stavrou, Melita. 2007. Noun Phrase in the generative perspective. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Aoun, Joseph E. & Li, Yen-Hui Audrey. 2003. Essays on the representational and derivational nature of grammar: The diversity of wh-constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1982. Purpose clauses and control. In Jacobson, Pauline & Pullum, Geoffrey K. (eds.), The nature of syntactic representation, 35–57. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh. 1999. Covert modality in non-finite contexts. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 1999. Consequences of antisymmetry: Headed relative clauses. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric, Hornstein, Norbert & Nunes, Jairo. 2010. Control as movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bošković, Želko. 2014. Now I'm a phase, now I'm not a phase: On the variability of phases with extraction and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 45 (1), 27–89.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2010. The syntax of adjectives: A comparative study. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose. 2013. Possessor raising. Linguistic Inquiry 44 (3), 391–432.Google Scholar
Douglas, Jamie. 2016. The syntactic structures of relativisation. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003182.Google Scholar
Faraci, Robert Angelo. 1974. Aspects of the grammar of infinitives and for-phrases. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Fox, D. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30 (1), 69–96.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2003. On control. In Hendrick, Randall (ed.), Minimalist syntax, 6–81. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jones, Charles. 1991. Purpose clauses: Syntax, thematics, and semantics of English purpose constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of control: Structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2003. Movement out of control. Linguistic Inquiry 34 (3), 471–98.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2004. The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22 (4), 811–77.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2008. Two routes of control: Evidence from case transmission in Russian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26 (4), 877–924.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2013. Control in generative grammar: A research companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2015. A two-tiered theory of control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2016. Against the null comitative analysis of partial control. Linguistic Inquiry 47 (3), 572–80.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 25 (4), 609–65.Google Scholar
Manzini, Maria Rita & Roussou, Anna. 2000. A minimalist theory of A-movement and control. Lingua 110 (6), 409–47.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas & Sundaresan, Sandhya. 2016. Failure to control is not a failure: It's pro. In Hammerly, Christopher & Prickett, Brandon (eds.), NELS 46: Proceedings of the Forty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, vol. 3, 1–10. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Nissenbaum, Jon. 2005. States, events and VP structure: Evidence from purposive adjuncts. Paper presented at NELS 36, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 28–30 October.Google Scholar
Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its failures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2010. Uttering trees. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Salzmann, Martin. 2006. Resumptive prolepsis: A study in indirect A′-dependencies. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle. 2014. Partial control in Romance languages: The covert comitative analysis. In Lahousse, Karen & Marzo, Stefania (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory, 181–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Truswell, Robert. 2007a. Extraction from adjuncts and the structure of events. Lingua 117 (8), 1355–77.Google Scholar
Truswell, Robert. 2007b. Locality of Wh-movement and the individuation of events. PhD dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11 (1), 203–38.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar