Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:33:05.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Duality of control in gerundive complements of P

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2021

IDAN LANDAU Open the ORCID record for IDAN LANDAU [Opens in a new window]
IDAN LANDAU*
Affiliation:
Department of Foreign Literatures & Linguistics, Ben Gurion University, P.O. Box 653, Beer Sheva84105, Israelidanl@bgu.ac.il
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sentences like They tricked him into believing them and They charged him with abandoning them raise interesting issues for selection and control. We show that these two sentences exemplify two distinct classes, subsuming P-gerund constructions that are formed with seven distinct prepositions: implicative vs. nonimplicative constructions. The first class displays a cluster of restrictions, both syntactic and semantic, which are absent from the second class: It resists partial control or embedded lexical subjects, and it bans object drop and movement of the P-gerund phrase. The existence of these two classes, as well as their empirical profiles, follow from Landau’s (2015) theory of control and challenge alternative approaches.

Keywords

causativecontrolgerundsimplicative complementspredication
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 57 , Issue 4 , November 2021 , pp. 783 - 813
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Footnotes

For helpful suggestions and comments, I thank Marcel den Dikken, Ken Safir, the audience of BCGL 13 (at the University of Brussels, December 2020), and three anonymous referees of Journal of Linguistics.

References

REFERENCES

Alexiadou, Artemis, Martin, Fabienne & Schäfer, Florian. 2017. Optionally causative manner verbs: When implied results get entailed. Presented at Roots V Workshop, QMUL & UCL. [Handout]Google Scholar
Anand, Pranav. 2006. De de se. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Authier, J.-Marc & Reed, Lisa. 2018. Symmetric reciprocal semantics as a predictor of partial control. Linguistic Inquiry 49, 379–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark. 2003. Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns and adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baltin, Mark. 2009. The properties of negative non-finite complements. In Irwin, Patricia & Maldonado, Violeta Vasquéz Rojas (eds.), NYU Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 2: Papers in Syntax, 1–17. New York: NYU.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1989. Anaphoric AGR. In Jaeggli, Osvaldo & Safir, Kenneth J. (eds.), The Null Subject Parameter, 69–109. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 1984. On the content of empty categories. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 591–656.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Control and complementation. Linguistic Inquiry 13, 343–434.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1984. Topics in the syntax and semantics of infinitives and gerunds. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1985. Formal semantics and the grammar of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 417–443.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1990. Anaphora and attitudes de se . In Bartsch, Renate, van Benthem, Johan & van Emde Boas, Peter (eds.), Semantics and contextual expression, 1–32. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1980a. Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1980b. On binding. Linguistic Inquiry 11, 1–46.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra & McCloskey, James. 1987. Government, barriers, and small clauses in Modern Irish. Linguistic Inquiry 18, 173–237.Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion and copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David. 1985. On recent analyses of the semantics of control. Linguistics and Philosophy 8, 291–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffley, Patrick J. 2014. Reclaiming control as a semantic and pragmatic phenomenon. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folli, Raffaela & Harley, Heidi. 2007. Causation, obligation, and argument structure: On the nature of little v . Lingiuistic Inquiry 38, 197–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folli, Raffaella & Harley, Heidi. 2019. A head movement approach to Talmy’s typology. Lingiuistic Inquiry 51, 425–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funakoshi, Kenshi. 2012. On headless XP-movement/ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 43, 519–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giparaitė, Judita 2010. The non-verbal type of small clauses in English and Lithuanian. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Grano, Thomas A. 2015. Control and restructuring. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Jeffrey J. 2018. Adjunct control: Syntax and processing. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Green, Jeffrey J. 2019. A movement theory of adjunct control. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4.1, 87. http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan & Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2004. Co-varying collexemes in the Into-causative. In Achard, Michel & Kemmer, Suzanne (eds.), Language, culture and mind, 225–236. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publicaitons.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan & Francis, Gill. 2000. Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven appraoch to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1971. Implicative verbs. Language 47, 340–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok & Davies, Mark A.. 2015. The into-causative construction in English: A construction-based perspective. English Language & Linguistics 20, 55–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok & Lee, Nam-Geun. 2013. The transitive into -ing construction in English: A usage-based approach. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 13, 395–418.Google Scholar
Ko, Heejeong. 2015. On the typology of small clauses: Null subject and mode of merge in resultatives. Studies in Generative Grammar 25, 347–375.Google Scholar
Koster, Jan. 1984. On binding and control. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 417–459.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of control: Structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2002. (Un)interpretable Neg in Comp. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 465–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2007. EPP extensions. Linguistic Inquiry 38, 485–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2010. The explicit syntax of implicit arguments. Linguistic Inquiry 41, 357–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2013. Control in generative grammar: A research companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2015. A Two-tiered Theory of Control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2016. Against the null comitative analysis of partial control. Linguistic Inquiry 47, 572–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2017. Adjunct control depends on Voice. In Halpert, Claire, Kotek, Hadas & Urk, Coppe van (eds.), A pesky set: Papers for David Pesetsky, 93–102. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2018. Direct variable binding and agreement in obligatory control. In Patel-Grosz, Pritty, Grosz, Patrick Georg & Zobel, Sarah (eds.), Pronouns in embedded contaxts, 1–41. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2020. Constraining head-stranding ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 51, 281–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2021. A selectional theory of adjunct control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita. 1983. On control and control theory. Linguistic Inquiry 14, 421–446.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 2005. Objects out of the lexicon! Argument-structure in the syntax. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
Matsuda, Asako. 2019. Person in partial control. Ph.D. disseration, Ochanomizu University.Google Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. 2018. Against the PredP theory of small clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 50, 63–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, Hazel. 2013. The sense of self: Topics in the semantics of de se expressions . Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Pearson, Hazel. 2016. The semantics of partial control. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34, 691–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, Hazel. 2018. Counterfactual de se. Semantics and Pragmatics 11, https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.3711.3762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Percus, Orin & Sauerland, Uli. 2003. On the LFs of attitude reports. In Weisberger, Matthias (ed.), Proceedings of Sinn and Bedeutung 7, 228–242. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
Pitteroff, Marcel, Alexiadou, Artemis, Darby, Jeannique & Fischer, Silke. 2017. On partial control in German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 20, 139–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitteroff, Marcel & Schäfer, Florian. 2019. Implicit control cross-linguistically. Language 95, 136–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1974. On raising. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Raposo, Eduardo & Uriagereka, Juan. 1995. Two types of small clauses. In Cardinaletti, Anna & Guasti, Maria Teresa (eds.), Small Clauses (Syntax and Semantics 28), 179–206. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rudanko, Juhani. 1989. Complementation and Case Grammar. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Rudanko, Juhani. 2002. Complements and constructions. Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Rudanko, Juhani. 2005. Lexico-grammatical innovation in current British and American English: A case study on the transitive into -ing pattern with evidence from the Bank of English Corpus. Studia Neophilologica 77, 171–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudanko, Juhani. 2006. Emergent alternations in complement selection: The spread of the transitive into -ing construction in British and American English. English Linguistics 34, 312–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudanko, Juhani. 2011. Changes in complementation in British and American English. Basingtoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudanko, Juhani. 2012. The transitive into -ing construction in early Twentieth Century American English, with evidence from the TIME Corpus. In Hoffman, Sebastian, Rayson, Paul & Leech, Geoffrey (eds.), English Corpus Linguistics: Looking back, moving forward, 179–190. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. & Pollard, Carl. 1991. An integrated theory of complement control. Language 67, 63–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, Tamina. 2010. Control in centred worlds. Journal of Semantics 27, 409–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 1994. Dependent nexus: Subordinate predication structures in English and the Scandinavian languages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Takano, Yuji. 2000. Illicit remnant movement: An argument for feature-driven movement. Linguistic Inquiry 31, 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Richmond H. 1974. Some complement constructions in Montague Grammar. In La Galy, Michael W., Fox, Robert A. & Bruck, Anthony (eds.), Proceedings from The Tenth Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 10), 712–722. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido J. 1994. PRO-legomena. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim 2003. Feature deletion under semantic binding. In Kadowaki, Makoto & Kawahara, Shigeto (eds.), Proceedings of The Thirty-third Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 33), 133–157. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1992. Adjunct control. In Larson, Richard, Iatridou, Sabine, Lahiri, Utpal & Higginbotham, James (eds.), Control and grammar, 297–322. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie, Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Gries, Stefan. 2007. Brutal Brits and the pervasive Americans: Variety-specific meaning construction in the into- causative. In Radden, Günter, Köpcke, Klaus-Michael, Berg, Thomas & Siemund, Peter (eds.), Aspects of meaning construction, 265–281. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2002. Semantic vs. syntactic control. In Zwart, Jan-Wouter & Abraham, Werner (eds.), Proceedings of the 15th Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax, 93–127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar