Control in English and Danish Presentation at NAES ’04 University of Aarhus, May 27 th -29 th Torben Thrane [Aarhus School of Business]

Structure of the presentation Control – what is it? Two classic approaches to control Types of control Control in Danish My approach to control

Jamie with Jamie all night Jamielovestodancea. b.Seeingdanceisa sight for sore eyes c.JimthinksthatdancingwithJamie is heaven e.The partywas given justtodance Anyone ? d.JimallowedBillto dancewithJamieonly once

Efter After at to have drukket drunk det meste af dagen, the most of day-the, blev became Byskolen Town School-the sidste stop for en 25-årig mand last stop for a 25-year man = Having been drinking for most of the day, the Town School became the last stop for a 25-year old man Control is not always easy! Politiken, Oh Danmark, 29th May under the heading School swimming in booze

a.“The notion of control is invoked whenever the interpretation of a constituent involves an ‘understood (or missing) subject’ whose reference is determined by a NP which is not in the subject position of the constituent in question.” [Farkas, 1988:27] b. “The classical province of the theory of control lies within what might be grouped together as the phenomena of understood reference for an argument position of a head, where a reference to a thing x is said to be understood with respect to a given position of a given head if there is no expression in that position referring to x, but one takes it that the position is appropriately related to x, either through another independent argument or position in the sentence or discourse in question, or as pragmatically supplied.” [Higginbotham, 1992:79] c. “The control problem concerns how to determine the understood subject of infinitival and gerundive VPs that lack an overt local subject.” [Jackendoff & Culicover 2003:517]

- Therefore, syntactically, the embedded structure is clausal (CP) - Therefore it has a syntactic subject (the Projection Principle) Semantically, an embedded control structure is propositional Referentially, the embedded subject is both anaphoric and pronominal - Therefore, it is ungoverned (the PRO-theorem) PRO is controlled by either the subject, the dative, or the object of the matrix clause The Syntactic (GB+) Theory of Control The controller is identified through co-indexation with PRO (not shown). PRONP S VNP O [ CP [ IP ][ VP (NP D ) to INF GERUND ][ VP ]] - Therefore it has a subject argument

The Semantic (Chierchia) Theory of Control John promised Jamie to dance Syntactically, embedded structures are non-finite VPs Embedded non-finite VPs are nominalizations, hence arguments Control is a matter of lexical entailmant The controller is identified by theta-role and by ‘functional adjacency’ Semantically, VP-arguments are either properties or propositions Arg 2 V to INF GERUND ]1]1 [ VP Arg 3 promisedJamie, (to-dance,John)

Types of control Obligatory Johnhopestowina fortunePROa. SC Johnwantstowina fortunePROb.Jim OC Johngavetoreada bookPROc.Jim DC

Non-obligatory Howaboutgoingfor a swim?PROf. Speaker/hearer control Johntalkedaboutwinninga fortunePROe. FreeArbitrary (anybody) Johnhopesthatwinninga fortunePROd. will saveyou Long-distance Backward Types of control

Adjunct SC JimleftJamie fire HarrytoPRO][ CP [ IP [ CP ]] Cf. Jim left Jamie in order to fire Harry Complement OC JimleftJamie fire HarrytoPRO [ CP [ IP [ CP ]] Cf. Jim left it to Jamie to fire Harry Jim left Jamie to fire Harry

Constituents Obligatory Optional Johnhis shoesin the bathroomputon Constitutional

+argumental-argumental +necessary ComplementParasite -necessary ArgumentSatellite Typology of sentence constituents +necessary = selected by V -necessary = selected by V´ +argumental = available as subject/object -argumental = unavailable as subject/object

VP V´ V S A C P puton his shoes John in the bathroom ∑ ∏ ∑ = situation type Argument structure Input to ModalizationStructureModalizationStructure IP InformationStructureInformationStructure CP ∏ = proposition

Theses Control is a semantico-syntactic phenomenon The control domain is syntactically VP Obligatory control is control from [+arg]-consituents – controlled structures are complements, parasites or satellites In Danish, parasitic and satellite control is marked by prepositions while complement control typically is unmarked The obligatory control domain is semantically ∏ Free control is control without a controller - controlled structures are satellites

Control structures are syntactically VP P1: They lack explicit subjects Jamieelsker loves at to danse dance P2: Subjects are external to V´ C: Control structures are syntactically V´

The evidence of selv ( = self) Jamieelsker loves at to danse dance selv self [ VP ] SC = Jamie loves to dance herself So, selv is an emphatic realization of PRO Jamie selv elsker at danse self loves to dance Jamie elsker at danse selv loves to dance self Could be an argument for raising rather than control, but -- Selv Jamie elsker at danse Self loves to dance

The obligatory control domain disallows tense and modality – tense and modality are assigned at the level of modalization *Jamieelsker loves at to danse dance måtte may-INF a. The obligatory control domain is semantically ∏ b. Jamieelsker loves at to danse dance få lov til get leave to at to - not because of the semantics of måtte c.Jamiesiges say- PRES- PAS at to danse dance måtte may-INF i morgen tomorow - nor because måtte in general is barred from control

VP V´ V VP DP blev holdt was given festen the party for at danse med Jamie to dance with Jamie Complement Satellite Free Control is control without a controller - controlled structures are satellites

Jannie Jamie lovede promised at to fyre fire Arne Harry *Jannie Jamie lovede promised at to fyre fire Arne Harry PREP [] [] In Danish, parasitic and satellite control is marked by prepositions while complement control typically is unmarked Control into complement Satellite/Parasite

Janni Jamie lovede promised Jens Jim en fridag a day off a.at to fyre fire Arne Harry for *for OC Janni Jamie lovede promised Jens Jim en fridag a day off b.at to fyre fire Arne Harry til *to SC for = in order tofor = in exchange for Cf. For at fyre Arne lovede Janni Jens en fridag * For to fire Harry promised Jamie Jim a day off Cf. *Til at fyre Arne lovede Janni Jens en fridag *To to fire Harry promised Jamie Jim a day off Cf. Jannie lovede Jens en kat til at fange mus Jamie promised Jim a cat *to to catch mice Controlled satellites and parasites are marked by different prepositions ? OC

VP V PP DP lovede promised Janni Jamie for (selv) at fyre Arne for (self) to fire Harry Satellite Argument V´ DP Jens Jim V´ DP en fridag a day off Complement SC Janni lovede Jens en fridag for selv at fyre Arne Jamie promised Jim a day off for self to fire Harry

VP V PP lovede promised for (selv) at fyre Arne for (self) to fire Harry VP DP Janni Jamie Argument Satellite V´ DP Jens Jim V´ DP en fridag a day off Complement OC Cf. Jens blev lovet en fridag for (selv) at fyre Arne blev lovet was promised

VP V´ V DP lovede promised Janni Jamie til ( ? selv) at fyre Arne *to (self) to fire Harry Argument Complement V´ VP Jens Jim V´ DP en fridag a day off Parasite Complement ? OC

Janni Jamie lovede promised Jens Jim at to hyre hire Svend Sven a.at to fyre fire Arne Harry for *for SC OC SC Janni Jamie lovede promised Jens Jim at to hyre hire Svend Sven SC b.at to fyre fire Arne Harry til *to OC for = in order tofor = in exchange for Complement [] Satellite [] [] ComplementParasite []

VP V´ V DP PP lovede promised Janni Jamie til (*selv) at fyre Arne *to (self) to fire Harry Argument Complement V´PP Jens Jim V´ VP at hyre to hire Complement Svend Sven DP V´DP (selv) V Argument Parasite SC V´ C Jannie lovede Jens (selv) at hyre Svend til at fyre Arne Jamie promised Jim (self) to hire Sven *to to fire Harry Complement

VP V´ V DP overtalte persuaded Janni Jamie Arne Harry Argument Complement VP Jens Jim V´ PP Parasite P DP (selv) OC Jannie overtalte Jens til (selv) at fyre Arne Jamie persuaded Jim *to (self) to fire Harry til Argument V´ VDP at fyre to fire Complement

Conclusions Control phenomena are difficult to generalize, but … There is a tendency in Danish to distinguish argumental from non-argumental control by the use of prepositions for the latter There is a tendency in Danish to use the preposition til to signal control into parasites, other prepositions to signal control into satellites -- but there is a lot more to be said!