Control in a cross-linguistic perspective: French-Norwegian

2010 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 194-207
Author(s):  
Hans Petter Helland
Keyword(s):  
Control Theory ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Obligatory Control ◽  
Arbitrary Reference ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Multilingual Corpus ◽  
Traditional Sense ◽  
The Subject ◽  
French Original ◽  
Parallel Texts

In this chapter, we examine control configurations in French gérondif clauses in which the referential properties of the implicit subject argument (PRO) have to be determined by contextual (linguistic and extra-linguistic) factors. We compare the control facts with parallel Norwegian translations. As a Germanic language, Norwegian does not have equivalent gérondif constructions, hence leaving it to the translator to resolve the control facts left unspecified in the French original. Traditionally, it is held that the implicit subject of the gérondif has to be the same as the subject of the matrix clause. It will be shown that this generalisation does not hold. In fact, PRO may have an explicit controller that is either a subject, an object or a prepositional complement of the matrix. The controller may also have an arbitrary reference. As a result, the resolution of PRO in the traditional sense will be regulated by control theory and discussed with respect to obligatory and non-obligatory control contrasts (OC vs. NOC) in generative settings. The data is taken from the Oslo Multilingual Corpus (OMC). This database enables us to compare parallel texts from Norwegian, English, German and French. We focus here primarily on Norwegian translations of French originals.

scholarly journals Featural definition of syntactic positions: Evidence from hyper-raising

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzana Fong
Keyword(s):  
Phase Problem ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Embedded Clause ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Finite Clause

Hyper-raising consists in raising a DP from an embedded finite clause into the matrix clause. HR introduces a phase problem: the embedded clause is finite, which is supposed to be impervious to raising. This can be overcome by postulating A-features at the C of the the embedded clause. They trigger the movement of the subject to [Spec, CP]. Being at the edge of a phase, it is visible to a matrix probe. If successful, this analysis provides support for the claim that syntactic positions are not inherently A or A-bar; they can be defined featurally instead.

scholarly journals Anaphora and subordination in Karitiana

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Luciana Storto ◽  
Karin Vivanco
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Item ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Third Person ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Embedded Clause ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract This paper describes the behavior of the anaphoric element ta- in Karitiana (Arikém branch, Tupian family) showing that it is a third person anaphor which must be bound (c-commanded and coindexed) by an antecedent in the same sentence. ta- may occur as a possessor clitic attached to a nominal, or as a subject or object clitic attached to a verb. We show with elicited and spontaneous data that the Karitiana anaphor is subject oriented when occurring in embedded environments, being able to refer to the subject of the matrix clause or to the subject of an embedded clause in cases of multiple embedding. We analyze this lexical item as a medium-distance anaphor, following the definition of Reuland and Koster (1991). Logophoric uses of the ta- anaphor are also exemplified and briefly discussed.

scholarly journals Obligatory and Non-Obligatory Control in Irish and Polish

2006 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 99-118
Author(s):  
Anna Bondaruk ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Long Distance ◽  
Partial Control ◽  
Obligatory Control ◽  
De Se ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Complement Clauses ◽  
The One ◽  
Aspectual Verbs ◽  
Strict Reading

This paper aims at establishing a typology of control in Irish and Polish non-finite clauses. First, seven classes of predicates taking non-finite complements in Irish and Polish are specified. They include: modal (e.g. must), aspectual (e.g. start), implicative (e.g. manage), factive (e.g. like), prepositional (e.g. say), desiderative (e.g. want) and interrogative verbs (e.g. ask). Whereas modals and aspectuals typically take raising complements, the remaining predicate classes require control complements. Control clauses in Polish always have a covert PRO subject, while in Irish their subject may be either the covert PRO or an overt DP. The PRO subject may be either obligatorily controlled or is controlled optionally. The criteria adopted in distinguishing obligatory control (OC) from non-obligatory control (NOC) are based on Landau (2000) and comprise the following: (1) a. Arbitrary Control is impossible in OC, possible in NOC; b. Long-distance control is impossible in OC, possible in NOC; c. Strict reading of PRO is impossible in OC, possible in NOC; d. De re reading of PRO is impossible in OC (only de se), possible in NOC. The validity of these criteria for establishing the OC/NOC contrast in Irish and Polish is scrutinised. Various contexts are examined where both these control types obtain in the two languages studied. Most notably, OC tends to occur in complement clauses, while NOC is often found in subject and adjunct clauses both in Irish and Polish. Within the class of OC, two subgroups are recognised, namely exhaustive control (EC) and partial control (PC). The former control type holds when the reference of PRO and its antecedent are identical, whereas the latter type of control is attested when the reference of PRO covers the reference of its antecedent, but is not entirely co-extensive with it, e.g.: (2) a. Maryᵢ managed [PROᵢ to win] = EC; b. Maryᵢ wanted [PRO + to meet at 6] = PC. EC and PC are found in analogous contexts in Irish and Polish. EC occurs in complements to modal, implicative and aspectual verbs, while PC is limited to complements to factive, desiderative, prepositional and interrogative predicates. It is argued that EC-complements lack independent tense specification, while PC-complements are marked for tense independent from the one expressed in the matrix clause. PC-complements both in Irish and Polish must contain a semantically plural predicate (cf. meet in (2b)), but they can never exhibit a syntactically plural element.

Infinitival Clauses in the Romance Languages

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guido Mensching
Keyword(s):  
Special Property ◽  
Prepositional Phrase ◽  
Romance Languages ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Object Control ◽  
Different Types ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Infinitival Clauses ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Subject Agreement

“Infinitival clauses” are constructions with a clausal status whose predicate is an infinitive. Romance infinitive clauses are mostly dependent clauses and can be divided into the following types: argumental infinitival clauses (such as subject and object clauses, the latter also including indirect interrogatives), predicative infinitival clauses, infinitival adjunct clauses, infinitival relative clauses, and nominalized infinitive clauses (with a determiner). More rarely, they appear as independent (main) clauses (root infinitival clauses) of different types, which usually have a marked character. Whereas infinitival adjunct clauses are generally preceded by prepositions, which can be argued to be outside the infinitival clause proper (i.e., the clause is part of a prepositional phrase), Romance argumental infinitive clauses are often introduced by complementizers that are diachronically derived from prepositions, mostly de/di and a/à. In most Romance languages, the infinitive itself is morphologically marked by an ending containing the morpheme {r} but lacks tense and agreement morphemes. However, some Romance languages have developed an infinitive that can be inflected for subject agreement (which is found in Portuguese, Galician, and Sardinian and also attested in Old Neapolitan). Romance languages share the property of English and other languages to leave the subject of infinitive clauses unexpressed (subject/object control, arbitrary control, and optional control) and also have raising and accusative-and-infinitive constructions. A special property of many Romance languages is the possibility of overtly expressing a nominative subject in infinitival clauses, mostly in postverbal position. The tense of the infinitive clause is usually interpreted as simultaneous or anterior to that of the matrix clause, but some matrix predicates and infinitive constructions trigger a posteriority/future reading. In addition, some Romance infinitive clauses are susceptible to constraints concerning aspect and modality.

Subject control and coreference in Early Modern English free adjuncts and absolutes

2002 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 309-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmen Río-Rey
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Statistical Evidence ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
Early Modern English ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Subject

The clear-cut distinction between free adjuncts and absolutes based on the presence in absolutes of an overt subject different from the subject of the matrix clause, as opposed to the covert subject – controlled by the subject of the matrix clause – of free adjuncts, does not always hold. While it is generally agreed that unrelated free adjuncts are fairly frequent in Present-day English (PE), absolutes whose subject is identical to that of the matrix clause are regarded as obsolete (Jespersen, 1909–49; Kortmann, 1991; Söderlind, 1958; Visser, 1963–73). However, no statistical evidence has been provided on this topic for earlier stages of the history of English. This article quantitatively assesses whether the various degrees of relatedness observed in Early Modern English (EModE) coincide with those attested for PE, and concludes that the boundaries between free adjuncts and absolutes were considerably fuzzier in EModE, a phenomenon to which punctuation decisively contributed.

scholarly journals Icelandic Control Is Not A-Movement: The Case from Case

2009 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan David Bobaljik ◽  
Idan Landau
Keyword(s):  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Subsequent Work ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Case Assignment ◽  
Obligatory Control ◽  
Movement Theory ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Infinitival Complements ◽  
Domain Independent

A rich literature on Icelandic syntax has established that infinitival complements of obligatory control verbs constitute a case assignment domain independent from the matrix clause, and in this differ systematically from all types of A-movement, which manifest case dependence/preservation. As Landau (2003) has observed, these facts provide significant counterevidence to the movement theory of control (Hornstein 1999 and subsequent work). Boeckx and Hornstein (2006a) attempt to defend this theory in light of data from Icelandic. We offer here a review of the relevant literature, and we show that Boeckx and Hornstein's reply fails on several counts. We further argue that contrary to their claims, PRO in Icelandic receives structural rather than default (nominative) case, leaving the movement theory with no account for the distinction between PRO and lexical subjects.

Deriving VOS from VSO in Tongan

2021 ◽  
pp. 61-88
Author(s):  
Maria Polinsky ◽  
Eric Potsdam
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Clitic Doubling ◽  
Syntactic Theory ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Rightward Movement ◽  
Basic Order

Research on word order has established several possible ways in which VOS order can be derived from VSO order. This chapter considers the derivational relationship between VSO and VOS in the Polynesian language Tongan. VSO order is basic in Tongan, and we address the derivation of VOS from this basic order in the context of multiple possibilities. We argue that Tongan VOS is better analyzed as rightward displacement of the subject as opposed to leftward displacement of the object proposed by Otsuka (2005a,c). The clause-final subject shows many of the hallmarks of rightward movement, including information-structural restrictions, locality with respect to the matrix clause, lack of clitic doubling, and connectivity with respect to case and binding. Given that rightward movement has an uneasy place in syntactic theory, we take pains to establish that the analysis is successful and worth further scrutiny.

Systemic ambiguity as a motivation in the emergence of logophoricity

2020 ◽  
pp. 89-106
Author(s):  
Zygmunt Frajzyngier ◽  
Marielle Butters
Keyword(s):  
Functional Domain ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Gender Agreement ◽  
Specific Solution ◽  
Complement Clause ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
The Subject ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Clausal Complements ◽  
Reference Markers

Chapter 4 demonstrates that a systematic ambiguity within a domain may constitute a motivation in the emergence of a function. The functional domain discussed is the domain of reference. The systematic ambiguity at play is the coding of reference in clausal complements of verbs of saying. More specifically, the question is whether the participants in the complement clause are coreferential with the participant in the matrix clause or whether they are not coreferential. Some languages deploy pronouns in the complement clause to code disjoint reference and person, number, and gender agreement on the verb to code coreference (Polish). Other languages deploy pronouns in the complement clause to code coreference and nouns to code disjoint reference (English). The specific solution described in Chapter 4 are logophoric pronouns which code not only coreference with the subject of the matrix clause but also coreference with other arguments of the matrix clause. The Chapter describes how logophoric coding emerged from the de dicto reference markers.

SEMANTICS OF GRAMMATICAL CONSTRUCTION: CORPUS AND QUANTITATIVE ASPECT

2019 ◽  
pp. 28-35
Author(s):  
V. V. Zhukovska
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Analysis ◽  
The Body ◽  
Quantitative Aspect ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Verb Classes ◽  
Text Corpora ◽  
State Process ◽  
Grammatical Construction ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
The Subject

Recently, much research in linguistics has become increasingly interested in the use of new methods and tools to analyze authentic linguistic data provided by text corpora. One of the most reliable corpus-based methods is the collostruction analysis, developed by A. Stefanowitsch and S. Th. Gries. Through statistical corpus analysis, this method examines semantics of grammatical construction by measuring the degree of mutual association/ repulsion between a construction and lexical items flling its main slot. This paper demonstrates the feasibility of applying the collostructional analysis to study semantics of one type of the English unaugmented detached construction with explicit subject, a non-fnite construction of a binary structure consisting of a (pro)nominal subject and Participle I as a predicate, as in [ВКЕС [Subj cheeks][Pred burning suddenly]]. Using R statistical software and the script for the collostructional analysis on empirical data drawn from the BNC-BYU corpus, we identify verbs, which reveal signifcant attraction to the predicate slot. The semantic analysis of the most strongly attracted verbs allows determining the semantic verb classes most closely associated with the given construction. It appears that the construction particularly attracts verbs involving the body, verbs of emission, verbs of motion, verbs of existence, touch verbs, and verbs of perception. These verbs belong to the aspectual classes of state and process. The analysis proves that the semantics of the construction [ВКЕС with-less[Subj general noun][Verb Participle І]] sets restrictions on flling its predicate slot with only those verbs whose arguments are compatible with the semantic roles defned by the construction. In its prototypical meaning the analyzed detached construction verbalizes a scenario in which Agent (the subject of the matrix clause) has a Partitive (the subject of the construction) in State/ Process (expressed by the predicate of the construction — Participle I). The evidence from the study suggests that the collostructional analysis substantially advances our understanding of grammatical constructions and their meaning. Clearly, these are only preliminary fndings and further studies regarding collostructional semantics of other types of English detached constructions with explicit subject would be worthwhile.

scholarly journals The Wandering Subjects of the Levant

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 136-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Ouwayda ◽  
Ur Shlonsky
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Lebanese Arabic ◽  
Simple Movement ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Rightward Movement

Lebanese Arabic (LA) presents a puzzling word order in non-finite subordination contexts where the subject of the matrix clause comes sandwiched between the embedded verb and its complement (Hallman 2011). We present new facts concerning this puzzle, and argue in favor of phrasal movement of TP, which transports both verbs and intervening material above the subject, along the lines of Kayne (2005:42). Importantly, while the surface position of the subject may appear to involve rightward movement, we propose the subject itself only undergoes one simple movement leftwards (as a topic), and that the puzzling order follows from the movement of phrases containing it.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document