Control alternations. On control properties in infinitival goal adjuncts in Baltic

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 45-77
Author(s):  
Axel Holvoet
Keyword(s):  
Control Subject ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Alternative Control ◽  
Object Control ◽  
Verbs Of Motion ◽  
Subject And Object ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Transitive Verbs ◽  
Control Patterns

This article deals with control phenomena in a particular type of infinitival adjuncts in Baltic, viz. in goal adjuncts with transitive verbs of motion. It has already been noted in the literature that, though infinitival adjuncts are often assumed to have implicit subjects controlled by the matrix clause subject, certain subtypes select a matrix clause object as a controller. This is also often the case with goal adjuncts: individual languages may choose either the matrix clause subject or the matrix clause object as a controller. As shown in this article, Lithuanian and Latvian have grammaticalized both types of control, i.e. for most verbs occurring in infinitival goal adjuncts alternative constructions with the two patterns of control (subject and object control) are available. The alternative control patterns correlate with transitivity vs. intransitivity marking on the infinitive in the goal adjunct. The article reflects on the syntactic interpretation of the observed facts, examines the distribution of the two control patterns over lexical classes of verbs occurring in the goal adjuncts, and looks at the implications of the facts for the theory of control.

scholarly journals The Interplay between Prosody and Syntax in Sentence Processing: The Case of Subject- and Object-control Verbs

2010 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. 1036-1053 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Bögels ◽  
Herbert Schriefers ◽  
Wietske Vonk ◽  
Dorothee J. Chwilla ◽  
Roel Kerkhofs
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Processing ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Syntactic Analysis ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
N400 Effect ◽  
Object Control ◽  
Subject And Object ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Completion Test ◽  
On Line

This study addresses the question whether prosodic information can affect the choice for a syntactic analysis in auditory sentence processing. We manipulated the prosody (in the form of a prosodic break; PB) of locally ambiguous Dutch sentences to favor one of two interpretations. The experimental items contained two different types of so-called control verbs (subject and object control) in the matrix clause and were syntactically disambiguated by a transitive or by an intransitive verb. In Experiment 1, we established the default off-line preference of the items for a transitive or an intransitive disambiguating verb with a visual and an auditory fragment completion test. The results suggested that subject- and object-control verbs differently affect the syntactic structure that listeners expect. In Experiment 2, we investigated these two types of verbs separately in an on-line ERP study. Consistent with the literature, the PB elicited a closure positive shift. Furthermore, in subject-control items, an N400 effect for intransitive relative to transitive disambiguating verbs was found, both for sentences with and for sentences without a PB. This result suggests that the default preference for subject-control verbs goes in the same direction as the effect of the PB. In object-control items, an N400 effect for intransitive relative to transitive disambiguating verbs was found for sentences with a PB but no effect in the absence of a PB. This indicates that a PB can affect the syntactic analysis that listeners pursue.

Functional and anaphoric control

2019 ◽  
pp. 545-601
Author(s):  
Mary Dalrymple ◽  
John J. Lowe ◽  
Louise Mycock
Keyword(s):  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Partial Control ◽  
Subject And Object ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Syntactic Relations ◽  
Lexical Constraints

This chapter explores the syntax and semantics of functional and anaphoric control, constructions in which either syntactic or lexical constraints require coreference between an argument of the matrix clause (the controller) and an argument of a subordinate or modifying adjunct clause (the controllee). Such cases include the classes of “raising” verbs (Section 15.2) and “equi” verbs (Section 15.4). Crosslinguistically, descriptions of such constructions involve reference to functional syntactic relations such as subject and object; therefore, the syntactic discussion in this chapter is primarily centered around the f-structures of functional and anaphoric control constructions. A detailed semantic analyses of functional and anaphoric control constructions is also presented, considering arbitrary, obligatory, and quasi-obligatory (partial) control relations, and a discussion of the syntax and semantics of control in adjuncts (Section 15.8).

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.

Ereigniskontrollierte Adjunkte im Deutschen

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 507-534
Author(s):  
Inghild Flaate Høyem
Keyword(s):  
Past Participle ◽  
Small Clause ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Object Control ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Small Clauses ◽  
German Data ◽  
Semantic Properties ◽  
Insight Into

Abstract The present paper investigates small clause adjuncts displaying the phenomenon referred to as ‘event control’ in literature. Many languages, including German, employ non-finite clauses (besides finite clauses) as propositional adjuncts, for instance infinitival, participial and small clause adjuncts. The subject of these adjunct clauses is left unexpressed and must generally be interpreted co-referentially with the subject or object of the matrix clause (subject or object control), but the matrix event itself can also be interpreted as the controller. Adjuncts involving event control have, to my knowledge, never been examined jointly or particularly thoroughly. The aim of this paper is therefore to provide insight into German data involving event control in different kinds of non-finite propositional adjunct clauses, by examining common and diverging syntactic and semantic properties. The data comprises nominative DPs (Germ. Satzappositionen), adverbial infinitives headed by um (Engl. in order to), adverbial present and past participle constructions, and adverbial small clauses headed by the particle als. Furthermore, I discuss briefly how these data could be captured theoretically, by analyzing them as adjuncts in different syntactic-semantic domains and as obligatorily controlled (OC) adjuncts according to the OC-properties described by Landau (2013).

scholarly journals Exhaustive object control constructions in Greek: An LFG/XLE treatment

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra Fiotaki ◽  
Katerina Tzortzi
Keyword(s):  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Object Control ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
The Subject ◽  
New Feature ◽  
National Corpus

In this paper we propose an LFG/XLE treatment of Exhaustive Object Control (EOC) constructions in Greek na clauses. We draw on data retrieved from the Hellenic National Corpus (HNC) in order to define the verbs that allow EOC. We treat EOC using anaphoric control. We take the subject of the subordinate na clause (controllee) to be a PRO marked with nominative case that is anaphorically related to the object of the matrix clause (controller). We implement this analysis in our LFG/XLE Grammar by adding the new feature ANAPH_C_BY.

Da eine oder mehrere betroffen …

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-100
Author(s):  
Melitta Gillmann
Keyword(s):  
High Frequency ◽  
Formal Language ◽  
Subordinate Clause ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Very High Frequency ◽  
Corpus Study ◽  
Causal Relations ◽  
Legal Texts ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Very High

AbstractBased on a corpus study conducted using the GerManC corpus (1650–1800), the paper sketches the functional and sociosymbolic development of subordinate clause constructions introduced by the subjunctor da ‘since’ in different text genres. In the second half of the 17th and the first half of the 18th century, the da clauses were characterized by semantic vagueness: Besides temporal, spatial and causal relations, the subjunctor established conditional, concessive, and adversative links between clauses. The corpus study reveals that different genres are crucial to the readings of da clauses. Spatial and temporal usages, for example, occur more often in sermons than in other genres. The conditional reading, in contrast, strongly tends to occur in legal texts, where it displays very high frequency. This could be the reason why da clauses carry indexical meaning in contemporary German and are associated with formal language. Over the course of the 18th century, the causal usages increase in all genres. Surprisingly, these causal da clauses tend to be placed in front of the matrix clause despite the overall tendency of causal clauses to follow the matrix clause.

Preschoolers’ imitation of sentential complement sentences: Does the nature of the matrix clause matter?

2021 ◽  
pp. 014272372110242
Author(s):  
Ian Morton ◽  
C. Melanie Schuele
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Age Group ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Developmental Progression ◽  
Main Effect ◽  
Dependent Variables ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Group 3 ◽  
Sentence Imitation ◽  
Experimental Findings

Preschoolers’ earliest productions of sentential complement sentences have matrix clauses that are limited in form. Diessel proposed that matrix clauses in these early productions are propositionally empty fixed phrases that lack semantic and syntactic integration with the clausal complement. By 4 years of age, however, preschoolers produce sentential complement sentences with matrix clauses that are more varied. Diessel proposed that the matrix clauses in these later productions semantically and syntactically embed the complement clause. We refer to these matrix clauses as formulaic and true, respectively. Diessel’s hypothesis about the development of sentential complement sentences was based on an analysis of spontaneous language. The purpose of this study was to evaluate Diessel’s hypothesis with an experimental sentence imitation task wherein stimuli varied in the nature of the matrix clause. Thirty children with typical language development participated; 10 children in each age group (3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds) imitated 50 sentential complement sentences that included either a true or a formulaic matrix clause; the structure of the dependent clauses did not vary. Dependent variables were percent sentence imitation and percent matrix clause imitation. There was a significant main effect for matrix clause type on imitation of sentences and matrix clauses. There was also a significant main effect for age on imitation of sentences and matrix clauses. Significant matrix clause type-by-age interactions were such that percent sentence imitation and percent matrix clause imitation varied by age. Three- and 4-year-olds were less proficient than 5-year-olds on imitation of sentences with true matrix clauses and on imitations of true matrix clauses. Only 3- and 4-year-olds were less proficient imitating true matrix clauses than formulaic matrix clauses. Experimental findings support Diessel’s hypothesis that there is a developmental progression in the nature of preschoolers’ production of sentential complement sentences.

Equidistance returns

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 413-461 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Longenbaugh ◽  
Maria Polinsky
Keyword(s):  
Subject Position ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Object Shift ◽  
Case System ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Case Licensing ◽  
Embedded Clause ◽  
Text Content ◽  
Semantic Object

Abstract Modern generative linguistic theory furnishes a variety of general principles that appear to be at work in the grammar of all the world’s languages. One of the most basic and uncontroversial of these principles is that Agree/Move operates according to the constraint Attract Closest, which dictates that the closest suitable goal must be the target for the relevant operation (Rizzi 1990; Chomsky 1995, 2000; Richards 1998). The Polynesian language Niuean (Tongic subgroup, predicate initial word order, ergative-absolutive case system) presents a well known challenge to the universality of {Attract Closest}. The challenge manifests in a variety of distinct constructions in Niuean, but the best known case involves an operation first documented by Seiter (1980), which he terms “raising.” Specifically, Niuean raising appears to license an A-type dependency between the subject position of the matrix clause and the object position of an immediately embedded clause. This is illustrated in (1), where the semantic object of the embedded subjunctive clause, Sione, appears as the syntactic subject of the matrix predicate maeke. (1) To maeke a Sione$_{1}$ [ke lagomatai he ekekafo $t_{1}$]. fut possible abs Sione sbj help erg doctor ‘It’s possible the doctor can help Sione.’ (lit.: Sione is possible that the doctor help [him]) Granting that the filler-gap dependency in (1) is A-type, this is both a clear violation of {Attract closest} (Rizzi 1992; Chomsky 1995; Richards 1998) and a typological anomaly. Our aim in this paper is to argue that such apparent violations of {Attract Closest} are only that. Specifically, we show first that the challenge inherent in Seiter’s raising construction is pervasive throughout the language: in general, objects are accessible to syntactic operations even if the intervening clause-mate subject is also a licit target. In other words, Niuean clause-mate subjects and objects are equally accessible to syntactic operations. Then, we argue that this typologically uncommon equal-accessibility follows from the convergence of several otherwise independently attested operations: (i) a configurational system of case licensing, with a $v$P as the case computation domain; (ii) obligatory object shift to Spec($v$P); (iii) an EPP on T triggering V/VP-raising rather than DP externalization. The resulting basic clause structure is then as below, so that Niuean adheres to standard locality constraints. (2)

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.

Subordinate clauses

2019 ◽  
pp. 237-288
Author(s):  
Jan Terje Faarlund
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Main Clause ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Subordinate Clauses ◽  
Different Types ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Infinitival Clauses ◽  
Finite Verb ◽  
Nominal Clauses

In subordinate clauses, the C position is occupied by a complementizer word, which may be null. The finite verb stays in V. SpecCP is either empty or occupied by a wh-word, or by some other element indicating its semantic function. Nominal clauses are finite or non-finite. Finite nominal clauses are declarative or interrogative. Declarative nominal clauses may under specific circumstances have main clause word order (‘embedded V2’). Infinitival clauses are marked by an infinitive marker, which is either in C (Swedish), or immediately above V (Danish). Norwegian has both options. Relative clauses comprise several different types; clauses with a relativized nominal argument are mostly introduced by a complementizer; adverbial relative clauses relativize a locative or temporal phrase, with or without a complementizer; comparative clauses relativize a degree or identity. Under hard-to-define circumstances depending on language and region, subordinate clauses allow extraction of phrases up into the matrix clause.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document