Scribd
Upload
33 views3 pages

Knowing Generative Syntax: Handout 8: Control, ECM and Other Topics

This document discusses control, exceptional case marking (ECM), and other topics in generative syntax. It explains that control structures involve an empty subject PRO that is controlled by another NP. ECM verbs like 'believe' and 'want' can assign accusative case inside an infinitival complement, unlike non-ECM verbs which require a preposition like 'for'. The document analyzes examples to show the structural differences between control and ECM constructions.

Uploaded by

Irene Patiño Martín
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
33 views3 pages

Knowing Generative Syntax: Handout 8: Control, ECM and Other Topics

This document discusses control, exceptional case marking (ECM), and other topics in generative syntax. It explains that control structures involve an empty subject PRO that is controlled by another NP. ECM verbs like 'believe' and 'want' can assign accusative case inside an infinitival complement, unlike non-ECM verbs which require a preposition like 'for'. The document analyzes examples to show the structural differences between control and ECM constructions.

Uploaded by

Irene Patiño Martín
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Knowing Generative Syntax

University of Novi Sad, 2004


John Frederick Bailyn
john.bailyn@stonybrook.edu
Handout 8: Control, ECM and other Topics
1) a. *John killed.
b. *The doctor arrived the doctor.
2) The theta-criterion:
a. An NP (DP) may receive only one thematic-role
b. An NP (DP) must receive a thematic role.
3) UTAH (Uniformity of Theta-Assignment Hypothesis) (Adger p. 138)
Identical thematic relationships between predicates and their arguments are represented
syntactically by identical structural relationships when items are Merged
I. Control. (What is the subject of the infinitive? is there one? )
4) a. Putin hopes [to sing in a night club].
b. *Putin hopes [Yeltsin to sing in a nightclub]
c. *Putin hopes [Putin to sing in a night club].
Notice that (4a) must mean that it is Putin (and not anyone else) who is the singer.
We cannot say that the NP Putin is assigned the theta-role directly from sing because this
would violate both the Theta-Criterion and UTAH.
5) Putin hopes [ for [Yeltsin to sing in a nightclub] ]
From (5) it should be clear that sing can have a subject so that means it must.
6) a. Yeltsin isn't sure [ whether [ he should continue the war] ]
b. Yeltsin isn't sure [ whether [ to continue the war]
In (6a), the subject of continue is he
In (6b), there is an empty subject !
Let us call this empty subject PRO "large PRO" (an "empty pronoun subject")
7) Structure of an infinitival TP (as in (4a) or (6b)):
TP
T'
T
vP
PRO
o
to
continue the war
v'
(PRO)
?
8) a. Putin is not sure [ whether [ to be a candidate ] ]
b. *Putin is not sure [ whether [ to be candidates ] ]
9) a. Putin
i
voted for himself
i
.
b. * Putin
i
voted for himself
k
.
10) a. *Putin
i
knows that [ Mrs. Yeltsin
j
voted for himself
i
].
b. Putin
i
knows that [ Mrs. Yeltsin
j
voted for herself
j
].
11) Putin
i
isn't sure [whether [ to vote for himself
i
or not ] ]
(11) should be ungrammatical. But not under the PRO analysis:
12) Putin
i
isn't sure [whether [ PRO
i
to vote for himself
i
or not ] ]
-2-
==> Subject Control:
The main clause subject (Putin) c-commands PRO, "controlling" its reference
==> Object Control
The main clause object c-commands PRO:
13) a. Putin
i
persuaded Yeltsin
k
[PRO
k
to leave ]
b. * Putin
i
persuaded Yeltsin
k
[PRO
i
to leave ]
What does this mean about direct objects within VP? They c-command infinitival
complements.
In (13) Yeltsin c-commands PRO (and is closer than Putin), so Yeltsin controls PRO!
PRO is the subject of adjunct small clauses as well:
14) a. The students danced.
b. The students danced drunk.
c. The students danced [PRO
i
drunk]
d. I found John
i
[PRO
i
drunk]
What happens if nothing c-commands PRO? Then, the reference of PRO is arbitrary
We call this PRO
arb
.
15) a. To live is to dance.
b. [PRO
arb
to live] is [PRO
arb
to dance ]
II. Exceptional Case Marking
16) a. *I hope [Putin to win the election ]
b. *I pray [Putin to win the election ]
c. *I rooted [Putin to win the election]
*d. I bet [Putin to win the election]
(16) are all ungrammatical because, as we have seen, infinitives do not assign Nominative case.
But notice that some verbs do allow things like this:
17) a. I believe [Putin to be right ]
b. I've never known [Putin to lie]
c. Everyone wants [Putin to be president some day]
What case is assigned to Putin in (17)? How do we tell? Try pronouns!
18) a. I believe [him to be right ]
b. I've never known [him to lie]
c. Everyone wants [him to be president some day]
19) a. *I believe [he to be right ]
b. *I've never known [he to lie]
c. *Everyone wants [he to be president some day]
So we can tell that case here is assigned by the verb
Therefore, we call these verbs exceptional case marking verbs! (ECM)
Now we have 2 types of sentences that seem identical in structure, but aren't:
20) a. Putin persuaded Yeltsin [PRO to resign ]. (control)
b. Putin wanted [ Yeltsin to resign ] (ECM)
Expletives / Dummies:
21) a. Putin wanted it to rain (it gets no theta-role theta-role being a "dummy")
b. *Putin persuaded it to rain. (persuade needs to assign 2 theta-roles)
-3-
No embedded subject:
22) a. Putin wanted [PRO to win]
b. *Putin persuaded[ PRO to win ] (persuade needs to assign 2 theta-roles)
Adverbs:
23) a. Putin persuaded Yeltsin firmly [PRO to resign]
b. Putin wanted *[ Yeltsin firmly to resign. ]
(the adverb firmly in (23b) not in the clause with the V it modifies)
But how are ECM verbs and non ECM verbs different in terms of features??
Note that non-ECM verbs (see 16) can be saved by adding for (a case assigner)
24) a. I hope [for [Putin / him to win the election ]
b. I pray [for [Putin / him to win the election ]
c. I rooted [for [Putin / him to win the election]
for is the head of CP, with an [ACC] case feature, selecting a [-T] TP.
Can you use (24) as an argument that movement to SpecTP is not for Case purposes?
If there is nothing to assign case to, a head is selected, but the structure is the same:
25) a. I
i
hope [ [ PRO
i
to win the election]
b. *I hope [for [PRO to win the election]]
non-ECM verbs therefore always select CP complements with infinitival T under them (for)
ECM-verbs were shown in (17):
17) a. I believe [Putin to be right ]
b. I've never known [Putin to lie]
c. Everyone wants [Putin to be president some day]
ECM verbs select TP directly. (or a normal, finite CP > TP (I believe that Putin is right) )
26) believe a. (transitive) [V], [uN], [uN]
b. (clausal complement) [V], [uN], [uC]
c. (ECM) [V], [uN], [uT]
27) Accusative case structures:
a. transitive verbs
v+V
VP
v'
DP
[acc]
[acc]
b. ECM verbs
TP
DP
[acc]
[acc]
T'
v P
T
V'
V

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy