Hubbry Logo
Control (linguistics)Control (linguistics)Main
Open search
Control (linguistics)
Community hub
Control (linguistics)
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Control (linguistics)
Control (linguistics)
Control (linguistics)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In linguistics, control is a construction in which the understood subject of a given predicate is determined by some expression in context. Stereotypical instances of control involve verbs. A superordinate verb "controls" the arguments of a subordinate, nonfinite verb. Control was intensively studied in the government and binding framework in the 1980s, and much of the terminology from that era is still used today.[1] In the days of Transformational Grammar, control phenomena were discussed in terms of Equi-NP deletion.[2] Control is often analyzed in terms of a null pronoun called PRO. Control is also related to raising, although there are important differences between control and raising.

Examples

[edit]

Standard instances of (obligatory) control are present in the following sentences:

Susan promised to help us. - Subject control with the obligatory control predicate promise
Fred stopped laughing. - Subject control with the obligatory control predicate stop
We tried to leave. - Subject control with the obligatory control predicate try
Sue asked Bill to stop. - Object control with the obligatory control predicate ask
They told you to support the effort. - Object control with the obligatory control predicate tell
Someone forced him to do it. - Object control with the obligatory control predicate force

Each of these sentences contains two verbal predicates. Each time the control verb is on the left, and the verb whose arguments are controlled is on the right. The control verb determines which expression is interpreted as the subject of the verb on the right. The first three sentences are examples of subject control, since the subject of the control verb is also the understood subject of the subordinate verb. The second three examples are instances of object control, because the object of the control verb is understood as the subject of the subordinate verb. The argument of the matrix predicate that functions as the subject of the embedded predicate is the controller. The controllers are in bold in the examples.

Control verbs vs. auxiliary verbs

[edit]

Control verbs have semantic content; they semantically select their arguments, that is, their appearance strongly influences the nature of the arguments they take.[3] In this regard, they are very different from auxiliary verbs, which lack semantic content and do not semantically select arguments. Compare the following pairs of sentences:

a. Sam will go. - will is an auxiliary verb.
b. Sam yearns to go. - yearns is a subject control verb.
a. Jim has to do it. - has to is a modal auxiliary verb.
b. Jim refuses to do it. - refuses is a subject control verb.
a. Jill would lie and cheat. - would is a modal auxiliary.
b. Jill attempted to lie and cheat. - attempted is a subject control verb.

The a-sentences contain auxiliary verbs that do not select the subject argument. What this means is that the embedded verbs go, do, and lie and cheat are responsible for semantically selecting the subject argument. The point is that while control verbs may have the same outward appearance as auxiliary verbs, the two verb types are quite different.

Non-obligatory or optional control

[edit]

Control verbs (such as promise, stop, try, ask, tell, force, yearn, refuse, attempt) obligatorily induce a control construction. That is, when control verbs appear, they inherently determine which of their arguments controls the embedded predicate. Control is hence obligatorily present with these verbs. In contrast, the arguments of many verbs can be controlled even when a superordinate control verb is absent, e.g.

He left, singing all the way. - Non-obligatory control of the present participle singing
Understanding nothing, the class protested. - Non-obligatory control of the present participle understanding
Holding his breath too long, Fred passed out. - Non-obligatory control of the present participle holding

In one sense, control is obligatory in these sentences because the arguments of the present participles singing, understanding, and holding are clearly controlled by the matrix subjects. In another sense, however, control is non-obligatory (or optional) because there is no control predicate present that necessitates that control occur.[4] General contextual factors are determining which expression is understood as the controller. The controller is the subject in these sentences because the subject establishes point of view.

Some researchers have begun to use the term "obligatory control" to just mean that there is a grammatical dependency between the controlled subject and its controller, even if that dependency is not strictly required. "Non-obligatory control", on the other hand, may be used just to mean that there is no grammatical dependency involved.[5] Both "obligatory control" and "non-obligatory control" can be present in a single sentence. The following example can either mean that the pool had been in the hot sun all day (so it was nice and warm), in which case there would be a syntactic dependency between "the pool" and "being". Or it can mean that the speaker was in the hot sun all day (so the pool is nice and cool), in which case there would be no grammatical dependency between "being" and the understood controller (the speaker).[6] In such non-obligatory control sentences, it appears that the understood controller needs to be either a perspective holder in the discourse or an established topic.[7]

The pool was the perfect temperature after being in the hot sun all day.

Arbitrary control

[edit]

Arbitrary control occurs when the controller is understood to be anybody in general, e.g.[8]

Reading the Dead Sea Scrolls is fun. - Arbitrary control of the gerund reading.
Seeing is believing. - Arbitrary control of the gerunds seeing and believing
Having to do something repeatedly is boring. - Arbitrary control of the gerund having

The understood subject of the gerunds in these sentence is non-discriminate; any generic person will do. In such cases, control is said to be "arbitrary". Any time the understood subject of a given predicate is not present in the linguistic or situational context, a generic subject (e.g. 'one') is understood.

Representing control

[edit]

Theoretical linguistics posits the existence of the null pronoun PRO as the theoretical basis for the analysis of control structures. The null pronoun PRO is an element that impacts a sentence in a similar manner to how a normal pronoun impacts a sentence, but the null pronoun is inaudible.[9] The null PRO is added to the predicate, where it occupies the position that one would typically associate with an overt subject (if one were present). The following trees illustrate PRO in both constituency-based structures of phrase structure grammars and dependency-based structures of dependency grammars:[10]

Control trees.
Control trees 2

The constituency-based trees are the a-trees on the left, and the dependency-based trees the b-trees on the right. Certainly aspects of these trees - especially of the constituency trees - can be disputed. In the current context, the trees are intended merely to suggest by way of illustration how control and PRO are conceived of. The indices are a common means of identifying PRO and with its antecedent in the control predicate, and the orange arrows indicate further the control relation. In a sense, the controller assigns its index to PRO, which identifies the argument that is understood as the subject of the subordinate predicate.

A (constituency-based) X-bar theoretic tree that is consistent with the standard GB-type analysis is given next:[11]

Syntactic tree

The details of this tree are, again, not so important. What is important is that by positing the existence of the null subject PRO, the theoretical analysis of control constructions gains a useful tool that can help uncover important traits of control constructions.

Control vs. raising

[edit]

Control must be distinguished from raising, though the two can be outwardly similar.[12] Control predicates semantically select their arguments, as stated above. Raising predicates, in contrast, do not semantically select (at least) one of their dependents. The contrast is evident with the so-called raising-to-object verbs (=ECM-verbs) such as believe, expect, want, and prove. Compare the following a- and b-sentences:

a. Fred asked you to read it. - asked is an object control verb.
b. Fred expects you to read it. - expects is a raising-to-object verb.
a. Jim forced her to say it. - forced is an object control verb.
b. Jim believed her to have said it. - believes is a raising-to-object verb.

The control predicates ask and force semantically select their object arguments, whereas the raising-to-object verbs do not. Instead, the object of the raising verb appears to have "risen" from the subject position of the embedded predicate, in this case from the embedded predicates to read and to have said. In other words, the embedded predicate is semantically selecting the argument of the matrix predicate. What this means is that while a raising-to-object verb takes an object dependent, that dependent is not a semantic argument of that raising verb. The distinction becomes apparent when one considers that a control predicate like ask requires its object to be an animate entity, whereas a raising-to-object predicate like expects places no semantic limitations on its object dependent.

Diagnostic Tests

[edit]

Expletives

[edit]

The different predicate types can be identified using expletive there.[13] Expletive there can appear as the "object" of a raising-to-object predicate, but not of a control verb, e.g.

a. *Fred asked there to be a party. - Expletive there cannot appear as the object of a control predicate.
b. Fred expects there to be a party. - Expletive there can appear as the object of a raising-to-object predicate.
a. *Jim forced there to be a party. - Expletive there cannot appear as the object of a control predicate.
b. Jim believes there to have been a party. - Expletive there can appear as the object of a raising-to-object predicate.

The control predicates cannot take expletive there because there does not fulfill the semantic requirements of the control predicates. Since the raising-to-object predicates do not select their objects, they can easily take expletive there.

Idioms

[edit]

Control and raising also differ in how they behave with idiomatic expressions.[14] Idiomatic expressions retain their meaning in a raising construction, but they lose it when they are arguments of a control verb. See the examples below featuring the idiom "The cat is out of the bag", which has the meaning that facts that were previously hidden are now revealed.

a. The cat wants to be out of the bag. - There is no possible idiomatic interpretation in the control construction.
b. The cat seems to be out of the bag. - The idiomatic interpretation is retained in the raising construction.

The explanation for this fact is that raising predicates do not semantically select their arguments, and therefore their arguments are not interpreted compositionally, as the subject or object of the raising predicate. Arguments of the control predicate, on the other hand, have to fulfill their semantic requirements, and interpreted as the argument of the predicate compositionally.

This test works for object control and ECM too.

a. I asked the cat to be out of the bag. - There is no possible idiomatic interpretation in the control construction.
b. I believe the cat to be out of the bag. - The idiomatic interpretation is retained in the raising construction.

Notes

[edit]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Control (linguistics)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In , control refers to an interpretive dependency in which an overt , known as the controller, determines the of an unexpressed subject, or controllee, in a non-finite embedded clause, such as an or . This phenomenon is central to syntactic theory, as it links the semantics of predicates with structural relations between clauses, often involving verbs like try, want, or persuade that select complements lacking an explicit subject. Control constructions are distinguished from raising constructions, where the embedded subject originates in the lower clause and moves to the matrix subject position without receiving a thematic role from the matrix verb; in contrast, control verbs assign thematic roles (e.g., agent or experiencer) to their subjects, which then bind the null element PRO in the embedded clause. For example, in "Khufu wants to run fast," wants assigns an experiencer role to Khufu, which controls the unexpressed subject of to run, whereas in raising examples like "Khufu seems to run fast," seems does not theta-mark Khufu, and the subject originates embedded. Unlike raising, control does not permit expletive subjects (e.g., "*It wants to rain") and typically preserves literal meanings in idiomatic contexts. Control is broadly categorized into obligatory control (OC), where the controller is local and unique (e.g., subject or object of the matrix verb), and the controllee behaves as a bound variable, and non-obligatory control (NOC), which allows flexible or long-distance antecedents, including discourse entities or generic interpretations (e.g., "[Ø Expressing opinions] is unwise"). OC is rigid and local, as in "Bob tried Ø to leave," while NOC permits non-local binding, as in "The opportunity to succeed was missed Ø." Theoretical accounts of control vary across frameworks. In PRO-based theories, the controllee is a null pronominal PRO subject to Binding Theory principles, such as the Binding Condition A (PRO must be bound in its governing category) or Null Case requirements, explaining its occurrence only in non-finite contexts. The Movement Theory of Control (MTC) treats OC as A-movement of the embedded subject to the matrix argument position, deriving the dependency from structure sharing rather than anaphora, though it struggles with NOC. posit a monoclausal structure for OC verbs, allowing transparency effects like long passivization in languages such as German (e.g., "The book was tried t to be written"). Semantically, control is often tied to thematic roles and predicate meaning, with the controller typically the agent or of an actional complement; this challenges purely syntactic views by showing that verb semantics determine control types, such as unique control (fixed controller, e.g., "John persuaded Sarah Ø to dance"), free control (any salient NP), or nearly free control (restricted options). In Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG), control involves functional equation between matrix and embedded arguments (e.g., SUBJ = XCOMP SUBJ), distinguishing functional control (lexical identity) from anaphoric control (PRO binding), with universal constraints like f-command for antecedents. Cross-linguistically, control manifests in diverse forms, including backward control (controller follows controllee, e.g., Greek "Ø learned [that John speaks]"), partial control (controller's included in controllee, e.g., "John planned Ø to meet at 5"), and copy control in languages like Zapotec, where the controllee is phonologically realized. These variations highlight control's interface with syntax, semantics, and the lexicon, influencing phenomena like passivization, reflexivization, and agreement across languages such as Malagasy, Telugu, and Salish.

Fundamentals

Definition and Overview

In , control is a syntactic whereby the unexpressed subject, denoted as PRO, of a non-finite embedded is interpreted as coreferential with a specific , known as the controller, in the matrix , typically the subject. This dependency arises in constructions involving infinitival or participial complements, where PRO fills the subject position without an overt realization. Key characteristics of control include its subject-oriented nature, in which the matrix subject most frequently serves as the controller, and its structure-dependent quality, governed by the hierarchical relationships between clauses rather than linear proximity. Unlike constructions with explicit subjects or pronouns, control involves an interpretive dependency establishing through syntactic mechanisms, distinguishing it as a form of identification unique to non-finite environments. The notion of control emerged within through Peter Rosenbaum's 1967 analysis of English predicate complement constructions, which proposed rules for subject deletion to capture these dependencies. It subsequently developed in frameworks like the Standard Theory to address in embedded clauses without invoking movement, providing an alternative to transformational accounts of similar phenomena. Control relies on foundational concepts such as embedded clauses, which function as arguments within a larger sentence structure, and , the semantic linking of distinct expressions to the same .

Basic Examples

Control constructions in English often involve a matrix selecting a non-finite infinitival complement, where the subject of the embedded is unexpressed and interpreted through with an argument of the matrix , known as PRO. A classic example of subject control is the sentence "John wants to leave," where the matrix subject "John" serves as the controller, and PRO, the null subject of the embedded infinitive "to leave," is coreferential with "John," meaning the same individual is understood to want and to perform the leaving. Similarly, verbs like "try" exhibit subject control, as in "Mary tried to solve the puzzle," with PRO coreferential with "Mary." In contrast, object control occurs when the matrix object controls PRO, as in "John persuaded Mary to leave," where PRO in the embedded clause is coreferential with "Mary," indicating that Mary is persuaded and will leave. Verbs such as "tell" also pattern this way: "The coach told the players to practice," with PRO understood as referring to "the players." Certain verbs show variation in control based on their lexical properties; for instance, "promise" typically enforces subject control even with an object present, as in "John promised Mary to leave," where PRO is coreferential with "John" rather than "Mary." This differs from object-control verbs like "persuade," highlighting how verb semantics influences the choice of controller. To distinguish control from constructions without PRO, consider "John wants Mary to leave," where "Mary" is an overt embedded subject, and no null PRO is involved; instead, the infinitive has an explicit subject, avoiding coreference interpretation via control. In English, these control patterns predominantly occur with as complements, which are non-finite clauses lacking tense and agreement, allowing PRO to occupy the subject position without violating syntactic constraints.

Types of Control

Obligatory Control

Obligatory control is a syntactic in which the unexpressed subject (PRO) of an embedded infinitival must be coreferential with a specific of the matrix , typically the subject or object, leaving no in the controller's identity. This is exhaustive in standard cases, meaning PRO refers solely to the controller and not to a superset including the controller. The traces back to early generative analyses of predicate complement constructions, where identical phrases in subject position undergo deletion under . Subject-control verbs, such as try, exemplify obligatory control where PRO is interpreted as the matrix subject. In the sentence "John tried PRO to win," PRO must refer exclusively to John, excluding any broader group interpretation. Object-control verbs, like convince, require PRO to be controlled by the matrix object: in "John convinced Mary PRO to win," PRO refers only to Mary. These examples illustrate how the matrix verb lexically determines the controller, enforcing strict referential dependencies. A variant of obligatory control is partial control, where the reference of PRO includes the controller but extends to a superset of entities (e.g., a including the controller and others). This occurs with certain attitude verbs like want or plan. For example, in "John wants PRO to succeed," PRO refers to John, but in "John and Mary want PRO to succeed," PRO can denote the pair . Partial control maintains locality and syntactic binding but allows non-exhaustive interpretation, often tied to the semantics of future-oriented predicates. Interpretive constraints on obligatory control include locality, whereby PRO must be controlled by an argument in the immediately superordinate , and an exhaustive binding relation akin to anaphors. Non-local control, such as across clause boundaries, is disallowed, as in "*John thinks it is hard PRO to win," where PRO cannot be controlled by John. This locality ensures the controller c-commands PRO within a local domain, preventing split antecedents or arbitrary interpretations. In , PRO in obligatory control constructions is treated as an anaphoric subject to Principle A of the binding , requiring a local antecedent and contributing to the exhaustive interpretation through structural binding. This analysis posits PRO as ungoverned and caseless, deriving its properties from the interaction of government, binding, and theta-role assignment. Such theoretical framing highlights the syntactic rigidity of obligatory control compared to more flexible dependencies.

Non-Obligatory Control

Non-obligatory control (NOC) refers to constructions in which the null subject PRO of a non-finite embedded clause is not obligatorily bound by a specific matrix , allowing for interpretive flexibility such as pronominal , long-distance antecedents, or generic interpretations. Unlike obligatory control, which requires strict local , NOC permits PRO to be controlled by non-local elements or influenced by context, often occurring with predicates involving attitudes, communication, or propositions. This flexibility arises from semantic and pragmatic mechanisms rather than rigid syntactic binding, enabling PRO to denote entities beyond the immediate syntactic domain. Mechanisms of NOC frequently involve pragmatic and discourse factors, permitting non-local control where PRO antecedents are determined by broader contextual salience rather than syntactic c-command. For example, in constructions like "John's decision [PRO to leave] surprised everyone," PRO can be controlled by John (local) or interpreted generically based on context. Another case is long-distance control, as in "Mary told John [that it would be fun PRO to visit Paris]," where PRO may refer to John, Mary, or a discourse-salient entity. In some languages, NOC manifests through logophoric pronouns that enable non-subject controllers in reported speech contexts, further emphasizing discourse-driven reference.

Arbitrary Control

Arbitrary control occurs when the null subject PRO of a non-finite embedded lacks a specific antecedent in the matrix clause and receives a generic or indefinite interpretation, often referring to "people in general" or a contextually determined indefinite entity. This contrasts with controlled PRO, which is bound to a particular argument, and is frequently observed in constructions involving impersonal predicates or evaluative adjectives that do not impose a definite controller. In such cases, PRO functions independently, allowing for a broad, non-specific unbound by the sentence's explicit arguments. Characteristic examples illustrate this generic interpretation. In "It is hard to find a job," the PRO subject of the is arbitrary, denoting a generic job-seeker rather than coreferring with the expletive "it." Likewise, passivized structures like "Visitors are forbidden to smoke" feature PRO interpreted as generic visitors, without a specific individual controller from clause. These constructions highlight how arbitrary PRO fills the subject position in infinitives under predicates that express general difficulty, , or evaluation, enabling an indefinite reading akin to overt generic pronouns like "one." Interpretively, arbitrary PRO exhibits non-anaphoric behavior, permitting deictic or logophoric readings that draw on contextual or speaker-oriented perspectives, unlike the strictly bound interpretation in obligatory control. It is not subject to binding constraints requiring a c-commanding antecedent and can evoke a human or agentive generic entity, often with modal implications of possibility or generality. Theoretically, analyses within , such as those in Chomsky (1981), conceptualize arbitrary PRO as a null generic , distinct from controlled PRO yet sharing pronominal features that allow ungoverned occurrence in non-finite subjects. This treatment underscores its role in structures like tough-movement constructions, where the embedded PRO receives an arbitrary interpretation to express generic accessibility or difficulty, as in "John is hard to please," with PRO unbound by "John" in certain readings.

Verb Classes and Comparisons

Control Verbs vs. Auxiliary Verbs

Control verbs are main verbs that subcategorize for non-finite clausal complements containing an implicit subject PRO, to which the control verb assigns a theta-role such as agent or theme based on its lexical semantics. Examples include verbs like try, want, and persuade, as in "John tries [PRO to win]," where try assigns an agent theta-role to PRO, interpreted as coreferential with the matrix subject John. In contrast, auxiliary verbs such as be, have, and modals like will form complex tenses or aspects without introducing control dependencies or PRO; they lack independent semantic content and do not assign theta-roles to arguments in their complements. For instance, in "John has [tried to win]," the auxiliary have supports the perfect aspect but treats the complement as part of the same predicate, with theta-roles assigned solely by the main verb try. A core semantic difference lies in argument selection: control verbs semantically select their arguments and PRO, contributing to the overall event structure, whereas auxiliaries do not select subjects or objects semantically, relying on the main verb for theta-role assignment. This is evident in how control verbs impose thematic restrictions—e.g., persuade requires a theme role for PRO in "Mary persuaded John [PRO to leave]," linking it to the object John—while auxiliaries like be in progressive constructions ("John is [leaving]") merely modify tense without thematic involvement. Syntactically, auxiliaries integrate complements as a unified predicate, avoiding the argument structure layering seen in control constructions. Syntactic diagnostics further distinguish the two classes through the NICE properties (, Inversion, Contraction, ), which auxiliaries exhibit but control verbs—as main verbs—do not. For inversion, auxiliaries front in yes/no questions without , as in "Has John tried to win?" but control verbs require : "Does John try to win?" since try cannot invert directly (*"Tries John to win?"). Similar patterns hold for negation ("John has not tried" vs. "John does not try") and ("John has tried, and Mary has too" vs. "John tries, and Mary does too"). Post-2000 analyses of aspectual and modal auxiliaries highlight nuances, such as certain modals behaving like control verbs in assigning theta-roles (e.g., dynamic will in "Tom will [PRO help]"), but standard auxiliaries like have and be consistently lack such properties.

Control vs. Raising

In control constructions, the matrix verb assigns a theta-role both to its explicit subject and to an implicit PRO subject in the embedded infinitival clause, with PRO interpreted as coreferential to the matrix subject and receiving its own theta-role from the embedded predicate. This structure preserves distinct argument positions across clauses, maintaining the semantic contributions of both the matrix and embedded verbs. For instance, in the sentence John wants to leave, the verb want theta-marks John as an experiencer, while PRO—controlled by John—is assigned the agent role by leave. Raising constructions, by contrast, feature a matrix verb that assigns no theta-role to its surface subject, which originates as the subject of the embedded clause and undergoes movement to the matrix subject position, thereby inheriting its theta-role solely from the embedded predicate. This results in a restructuring of arguments, where the matrix clause effectively lacks an independent external argument. Consider John seems to leave: here, seem contributes no theta-role to John, who receives the agent role from leave and is raised to satisfy the matrix clause's structural requirements. The distinction between control and raising emerged in early generative analyses of English infinitival complements, with control preserving frames and theta-grids from both clauses, while raising restructures them by demoting the embedded subject to a non- status in . This theoretical foundation traces to verb classification efforts, including Perlmutter's (1970) unaccusative hypothesis, which underscored variations in how verbs realize external versus internal , influencing later understandings of raising as akin to unaccusative processes. In minimalist syntax, an alternative analysis treats obligatory control without PRO, positing sideward movement of the embedded subject to position, thereby unifying control with raising under a movement-based account (Hornstein 1999).

Diagnostic Tests

Diagnostic tests provide empirical methods to distinguish control constructions, where the matrix verb assigns a thematic to its subject and the embedded subject is a null pronoun (PRO), from raising constructions, where the matrix verb does not assign a thematic to its apparent subject, which originates in the embedded clause. These tests exploit differences in argument structure and clause integration, confirming the absence of theta-role assignment in raising verbs as opposed to control verbs. The expletive test determines whether a non-referential expletive pronoun like it can appear as the matrix subject. In raising constructions, expletives are permitted because the matrix verb selects a clausal complement without requiring a thematic subject, as in "It seems to rain often," where it has no referential interpretation. In contrast, control constructions disallow expletives, as the matrix verb demands a thematic subject, rendering "*It wants to rain" ungrammatical since PRO cannot be non-referential. This test highlights the structural promotion of the embedded subject in raising, a pattern established in early analyses of English infinitivals. The chunk test assesses whether idiomatic expressions can span the matrix and embedded while preserving their non-literal meaning. Raising verbs allow this because the embedded subject is base-generated in the lower clause and raises, maintaining idiomatic integrity, as in "The cat seems to have let the cat out of the bag," where the "let the cat out of the bag" remains intact. Control verbs block such spanning, forcing a literal interpretation, as in "*John wants the cat to be out of the bag," which does not convey the idiomatic sense unless contextually adjusted. This diagnostic underscores the lack of selectional restrictions on the subject in raising structures. Purpose clause adjacency serves as another diagnostic, particularly for object control, where a purpose infinitive can adjoin to the matrix object, controlled by it, as in "John bought a car to drive," implying John drives the car. Raising verbs, lacking a thematic object, do not permit this adjacency without resulting in infelicity, as the structure requires a controller with a theta-role. This test applies across control types to verify the presence of argument control absent in raising. The scope of test examines how matrix negation interacts with the embedded subject. In raising constructions, the embedded subject can take narrow scope under , allowing readings where targets the embedded , as in "John doesn't seem to like Mary," interpretable as "It doesn't seem that John likes Mary." Control constructions restrict the subject to wide scope over , as in "John doesn't want to like Mary," where the unambiguously scopes over the matrix verb and its thematic subject. Quantifier scope ambiguities further distinguish the two: raising permits both wide and narrow scopes for embedded quantifiers (e.g., "Two boys seem to be in the yard" ≈ "It seems two boys are in the yard"), while control enforces wide scope only. These patterns reflect the embedded origin of the subject in raising versus its matrix thematic status in control. Collectively, these tests confirm the core distinction between control and raising by probing theta-role assignment and structural integration, with raising structures allowing non-thematic elements and scope flexibility indicative of movement or clause without selection. Post-2010 psycholinguistic studies, including computational models of verb learning, have validated these diagnostics through experimental evidence of how learners infer raising versus control classes based on expletive and scope cues, supporting their reliability in and acquisition.

Theoretical Representation

In Generative Grammar

In generative grammar, the analysis of control structures evolved from early transformational approaches to more principled frameworks within Government and Binding (GB) theory and the . Peter Rosenbaum's 1967 dissertation introduced the first systematic treatment, proposing an "Identity Erasure Transformation" (later termed Equi-NP Deletion) that deleted the subject of an embedded non-finite clause under identity with a matrix argument, accounting for obligatory control phenomena in English predicates like try or persuade. This rule-based mechanism handled coreference but lacked deeper constraints on distribution or interpretation. By the 1980s, Noam Chomsky's GB theory (1981) reformulated control using PRO, a phonologically null pronominal element that occupies the subject position of non-finite clauses, resolving issues with deletion by integrating control into broader principles of binding and government. PRO is analyzed as an functioning as a null , subject to Binding : it behaves as an anaphor under Principle A, requiring a local antecedent (the controller) for obligatory control, while avoiding Principle C violations by not being a referential expression like R-expressions. This dual nature—pronominal yet anaphoric—leads to the PRO , stipulating that PRO must occur in ungoverned positions to prevent contradictory binding requirements, ensuring it appears only in non-finite contexts where no case is assigned (as finite Tense assigns ). Consequently, PRO receives a "null case" in minimalist extensions, distinct from structural cases, restricting it to infinitival subjects. Representations in GB typically depict PRO in the specifier of the embedded IP, co-indexed with the matrix controller to enforce binding. For instance, in the sentence John tried to leave, the structure is linearized as John_i [tried [IP PRO_i to leave]], where the subscript i indicates coreference via binding. This co-indexing captures obligatory control's local antecedent requirement, as seen in subject control with verbs like try. In tree terms, the embedded clause features PRO as the ungoverned subject, avoiding case conflicts and enabling anaphoric interpretation. Post-GB developments in the have sought to reduce or eliminate PRO. Norbert Hornstein's 1999 proposal treats obligatory control as sideward movement of the controller into the embedded clause, deriving coreference without a null and unifying control with raising under A-movement operations. More recent Agree-based models, such as Idan Landau's 2007 framework, eliminate PRO entirely by positing that control arises from φ-feature agreement between the matrix controller and an embedded null tense or aspect head, licensing the interpretation without syntactic movement or empty categories. These alternatives address PRO's theoretical peculiarities, like its resistance to reconstruction effects, while maintaining empirical coverage of control diagnostics.

Cross-Linguistic Variations

In , object control constructions are prevalent, as seen in French where the matrix object serves as the controller for the embedded clause subject, similar to English patterns. For instance, in the sentence Jean a convaincu Marie de partir ("Jean convinced Marie to leave"), Marie is the controller of the embedded subject. climbing, a in which clitics associated with the embedded verb attach to the matrix verb, interacts with control in these languages, particularly with verbs that permit monoclausal-like behavior. Cross-linguistically, non-Indo-European languages exhibit distinct mechanisms for control. In African languages like Ewe, logophoric pronouns such as yɛ and mɛ function as overt equivalents of PRO, enabling long-distance control in embedded clauses by coreferring with the matrix attitude holder without requiring null elements. In Japanese, control is realized through zero anaphora and equi-NP deletion rules rather than a universal PRO, where the embedded subject is omitted and interpreted via contextual or pragmatic inference from the matrix argument. In Balkan languages such as Greek and Romanian, finite control occurs in subjunctive clauses with explicit subjects that agree with the matrix controller, lacking infinitives and relying on mood markers for dependency. These patterns challenge the universality of PRO posited in English-centric generative models, particularly in head-final languages like Japanese where structural asymmetries prevent standard binding of null subjects.

References

  1. https://people.clas.ufl.edu/potsdam/files/Potsdam-Haddad-2017.pdf
  2. https://opentext.ku.edu/syntax/chapter/raising-versus-control/
  3. https://web.stanford.edu/~bresnan/bresnan.LI.1982.pdf
  4. https://people.brandeis.edu/~jackendo/control5-4ss.pdf
  5. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139061858
  6. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262180238/the-grammar-of-english-predicate-complement-constructions/
  7. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00437956.2015.1006855
  8. https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/pollard.4/syntax2/win10/control.pdf
  9. https://as.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu-as/linguistics/documents/Thesis%20Leyi%20Yan%202022%20(1).pdf
  10. http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/theses/rosenbaum65.pdf
  11. https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/16406/
  12. https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jIxNDk3M/The%20Semantics%20of%20Partial%20Control.pdf
  13. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-3943-4_2
  14. https://clubsports.nnu.edu/virtual-library/fDClkG/276038/LecturesOnGovernmentAndBinding.pdf
  15. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/control-in-generative-grammar/nonobligatory-control/FA036784FB1EC1B71B54B91FB870659B
  16. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-3943-4_3
  17. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-linguistic-typology/logophoricity/0E4BE929B7B7D5477838598F86828336
  18. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mpolinsky/files/raising_and_control.030311..pdf
  19. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/205267926.pdf
  20. https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-662
  21. https://archive.org/details/lecturesongovern0000chom
  22. https://opentext.ku.edu/syntax/chapter/selection/
  23. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/091a/37a987f0ccbe8c81ed9f94da99c4d5c2d325.pdf
  24. https://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/ijl/article/download/17595/13607
  25. https://s-space.snu.ac.kr/bitstream/10371/2028/3/workingpapers_v2_157.pdf
  26. https://direct.mit.edu/ling/article/30/1/69/36/Movement-and-Control
  27. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262660419/on-raising/
  28. https://www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/169_fulltext.pdf
  29. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41475305
  30. https://ethanpoole.com/handouts/ling-200b/2021/12-raising-control.pdf
  31. https://sites.socsci.uci.edu/~lpearl/courses/readings/MitchenerBecker2011_LearningRaisingControl.pdf
  32. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4179050
  33. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024384107000885
  34. https://salford-repository.worktribe.com/preview/1502406/Rowlett_The_syntax_of_French_ms.pdf
  35. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom107
  36. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/deniz/files/denizewepaper.pdf
  37. https://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstreams/8264dc41-2731-4a11-a360-134fb375d996/download
  38. https://aclanthology.org/E93-1037.pdf
  39. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11049-004-4265-5
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.