Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Control And Extraposition: The Case Of Super-Equi

  • Published:
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Previous analyses of control in Super-Equi have failed to account forthe entire paradigm of relevant cases. A new generalization is stated:Obligatory Control (OC) obtains in extraposition only under psychologicalpredicates. It is argued that extraposition is driven by the requirement thatVP-internal clauses be peripheral at PF. This is satisfied by a causer infinitive which is projected below an experiencer DP, but not by one projected above a theme goal DP. Thus extraposition is blocked in the former case and licensed in the latter. Crucially, only when the infinitive is extraposed to an adjunct position (or intraposed to a subject position) can it give rise to Non-Obligatory Control (NOC); this is supported by a correlation between NOC and failure of extraction from the infinitive. It is claimed that in OC an Agree relation is established between the matrix functional head that licenses the controller and an anaphoric infinitival Agr, which raises to the embedded C as a ‘free-rider’ on T. Since Agree issensitive to islands, the distributional distinction between OC and NOC reducesto the CED. Failing syntactic identification, the infinitival Agr is licensed as a logophor, explaining some well-known properties of NOC in Super-Equi. Theproposed account unifies a wide range of phenomena unrelated under alternativeanalyses of control and Super-Equi.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Arad, Maya. 1998. VP-structure and the Syntax-Lexicon Interface, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University College London.

  • Barss, Andrew and Howard Lasnik. 1986. ‘A Note on Anaphora and Double Objects’, Linguistic Inquiry 17, 347–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belletti, Adriana and Luigi Rizzi. 1988. ‘Psych-Verbs and 2-Theory’, NLLT 6, 291–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobaijik, Jonathan D. 1999. ‘Implications of Adjacency: On the Typology of “Covert” Movement’, Handout of a talk given at the University of Ottawa.

  • Borer, Hagit. 1998. ‘Passive Without Theta-Grids’, in Diane Brentari and Patrick Farrell (eds.), Morphology of Its Relations to Phonology and Syntax, CSLI. Stanford, pp. 60–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borer, Hagit. 1989. ‘Anaphoric AGR’, Osvaldo Jaeggli and Kenneth J. Safir (eds.), The Null Subject Parameter, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 69–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouchard, Denis. 1984. On the Content of Empty Categories, Foris, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresnan, Joan. 1982. ‘Control and Complementation’, Linguistic Inquiry 13, 343–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brody, Michael and M. Rita Manzini. 1987. ‘Implicit Arguments’, in Ruth Kempson (ed.), Mental Representations: The Interface Between Language and Reality, University Press, Cambridge, pp. 105–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, Gennaro and Pauline Jacobson. 1986. ‘Local and Long Distance Control’, NELS 16, 57–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1986a. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use, Praeger, Westport, Connecticut.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1986b. Barriers, Cambridge, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1998. ‘Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework’, MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15, MITWPL, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1999. ‘Derivation by Phase’, MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18, MITWPL, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A-bar Dependencies, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, Robin. 1990. Thematic Theory in Syntax and Interpretation, Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clements, George N. 1975. ‘Super-Equi and the Intervention Constraint’, NELS 5, 13–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comrie, Bernard. 1984. ‘Subject and Object Control: Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics’, in Claudia Brugman, Monica MacCauley, Amy Dahlstrom, Michele Emanation, Birch Moonwoman and Catherine O'Connor (eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of Berkeley Linguistic Society, University of California, Berkeley, pp. 450–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • den Besten, Hans. 1982. ‘On the Interaction of Root Transformations and Lexical Deletive Rules’, in Werner Abraham (ed.), On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 47–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diesing, Molly. 1992, Indefinites, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, Samuel. 1984. ‘Quantifier-pro and the LF Representation of PROarb, Linguistic Inquiry 15, 499–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farkas, Donca. 1985. ‘Obligatorily Controlled Subjects in Romanian’, in William H. Eilfort, Paul D. Krocher and Karen L. Peterson (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-first Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago, Chicago, pp. 90–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farkas, Donca. 1988. ‘On Obligatory Control’, Linguistics and Philosophy 11, 27–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, Danny. 1999. ‘Reconstruction, Binding Theory and the Interpretation of Chains’, Linguistic Inquiry 30, 157–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grinder, John. 1970. ‘Super Equi-NP Deletion’, in Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago, Chicago, pp. 297–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. ‘Movement and Control’, Linguistic Inquiry 30, 69–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang. C.-T. James. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

  • Kawasaki, Noriko. 1993. Control and Arbitrary Interpretation in English, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts.

  • Kimball, John P. 1971. ‘Super Equi-NP Deletion as Dative Deletion’, in Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago, Chicago, pp. 142–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koster, Jan. 1984. ‘On Binding and Control’, Linguistic Inquiry 15, 417–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuno, Susumo. 1975. ‘Super Equi-NP Deletion is a Pseudo-Transformation’, in Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, GLSA Publications, University of Massachausetts, Amherst, pp. 29–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landau, Idan. 1999. Elements of Control, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

  • Larson, Richard. 1988. ‘On the Double Object Construction’, Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, Richard. 1991. ‘Promise and the Theory of Control’, Linguistic Inquiry 22, 103–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, Richard, Sabine Iatridou, Utpal Lahiri and James Higginbotham. 1992. Control and Grammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasnik, Howard. 1992. ‘Two Notes on Control and Binding’, in Larson et al. (eds.), Control and Grammar, pp. 235–251.

  • Lebeaux, David. 1984. ‘Anaphoric Binding and the Definition of PRO’, in Charles Jones and Peter Sells (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, GLSA Publications, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 253–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebeaux, David. 1985. ‘Locality and Anaphoric Binding’, The Linguistic Review 4, 343–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manzini, M. Rita. 1983. ‘On Control and Control Theory’, Linguistic Inquiry 14, 421–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manzini, M. Rita. 1986. ‘On Control and Binding Theory’, in S. Berman, J.-W. Choe, and J. McDonough (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 322–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manzini, M. Rita and Anna Roussou. 2000. ‘A Minimalist Theory of A-movement and Control’, Lingua 110(6), 409–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marantz, Alec. 1993. ‘Implications of Asymmetries in Double Object Constructions’, in Sam A. Mchombo (ed.), Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar, CSLI Publications, Stanford, California, pp. 113–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melvold, Janis. 1985. ‘Getting PRO Under Control’, unpublished manuscript, MIT.

  • Mohanan, K. P. 1985. ‘Remarks on Control and Control Theory’, Lignuistic Inquiry 16, 637–648.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesetsky, David. 1991. Zero Syntax II: An Essay on Infinitives, unpublished manuscript, MIT.

  • Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego. 2000. ‘T-to-C Movement: Causes and Consequences’, to appear in Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

  • Petter, Marga. 1998. Getting PRO Under Control, LOT International Series, vol. 8, Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics, Holland Academic Graphics, The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, Colin. 1996. Order and Structure, unpublished dissertation, MIT.

  • Reinhant, Tanya and Eric Reuland. 1993. ‘Reflexivity’, Linguistic Inquiry 24, 657–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. ‘Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of pro’, Linguistic Inquiry 17, 501–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. ‘The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery’, in Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Handbook in Generative Syntax, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 281–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roeper, Thomas. 1987. ‘Implicit Arguments and the Head-Complement Relation’, Linguistic Inquiry 18, 267–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, Peter. 1967. The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sag, Ivan and Carl Pollard. 1991. ‘An Integrated Theory of Complement Control’, Language 67, 63–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sells, Peter. 1987. ‘Aspects of Logophoricity’, Linguistic Inquiry 18, 445–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stowell, Tim. 1982. ‘The Tense of Infinitives’, Linguistic Inquiry 13, 561–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroik, Thomas. 1996. Minimalism, Scope and VP-Structure, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suñer, Margarita. 1984. ‘Controlled pro’, Linguistic Symposium of Romance Languages 12, 253–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Edward. 1974. Rule Ordering in Syntax, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

  • Williams, Edward. 1980. ‘Predication’, Linguistic Inquiry 11, 203–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Edward. 1992. ‘Adjunct Control’, in Larson et al. (eds.), Control and Grammar, pp. 297–322.

  • Wurmbrand, Susi. 1998. Infinitives, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

  • Yang, Dong-Whee. 1985. ‘On the Integrity of Control Theory’, in S. Berman, J.-W Choe, and J. McDonough (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, GLSA Publications, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 389–408.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Foreign Literature and Linguistics, Ben Gurion University, P.O. Box 653, Beer Sheva, 94105, Israel

    Idan Landau

Authors
  1. Idan Landau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Landau, I. Control And Extraposition: The Case Of Super-Equi. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19, 109–152 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006485514817

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006485514817

Keywords