Elective Course: Control in English & Romanian: The

Infinitive/Subjunctive divide
Course 1: Intro. Setting the Stage: Key Concepts
A. Aims: in plain & general terms and in a nutshell , to look at examples of the type in (1) & (2)
(1) Verbs of control
[Control = relation of identity of reference! bet"een a null embedded sub#ect and a
$ain Clause antecedent the sub#ect or %arious types of! ob#ects!&
a. I
i
tried/managed [e
i
to go (Su control) / !e
"
for#ed me
i
[e
i
to go (Obj control) 'n.!
$. e
i
%m reu&it/'n#er#at [e
i
s( ple# / e
"
)
i
*a o$ligat [e
i
s( ple# (o.!
): (1a) & (1$) + o$ligatory instan#es of #ontrol, - #an there $e dis"oint referen#e $et.een the
empty em$edded su$"e#t and its )ain /lause ante#edent, (if yes + 0#ontrol1 #an $e o$2iated3 if no +
o$ligatory #ontrol)
(2) Verbs of %olition * %olitional %erbs
a. !e
i
.ants [e
i
to go no. (Su control)
$. !e
i
.ants him
#+,i
to lea2e (4aising) 'n.!
#. Il
i
2eut [e
i+,#
partir. (555555555) / #0. Il
i
2eut [-u1il
#+,i
parte. (5555555555555) (6r)
d. 7ianni
i
2uole [e
i+,#
partire ( 5555555555 ) /
d1. 7ianni
i
2uole [che lui
,i + #
parta ( 5555555) (It.)
(omance!
e. Ion
i
2rea [e
i+#!
s. ple#e
f. Ion
i
2rea [#a el
#+i!
s. ple#e (omanian!
)1: if you #arefully look at the a$o2e examples in (2), .hat do you noti#e a$out them/.hat do they
ha2e in #ommon, (Hint: look at the type/spe#ifi#ation of the main #lause su$"e#t)
)/: the 2er$ 0"ant1 #an enter /ontrol stru#tures. But is it an obligatory control %erb (- #an .e
$uild senten#es .ith 0.ant1 (8 infiniti2e #omplements) .here there is no /ontrol,
8 Identify .hi#h examples in (2#, d) are #ontrol instan#es and .hi#h are no*#ontrol instan#es, (use
the $lanks)
)2: in point of the type of #omplement sele#ted $y 2olitional 2er$s in the three sets/types of
languages, .hat differen#es #an .e point out,
...... and dis#uss:
a) .hether synta#ti# #ontrol in 9nglish (i.e., the identity relation $et.een the null su$"e#t of
the infinitival #lause and the main #lause element .ith .hi#h it is #o*indexed) #an $e
adopted for 4omanian as .ell :: .hether this identity relation is esta$lished/#onstrained in
the same .ay in the t.o languages, gi2en that infiniti2es are non*finite #omplements 2s.
the su$"un#ti2e (0#on"un#ti21), .hi#h is finite
$) ho. null (.here a2aila$le, i.e., in pro *drop languages) and o2ert pronouns esta$lish their
referen#e relations, i.e., ho. they retrie2e their ante#edents in 9n/4oman#e/4omanian,
fun#tion of the type of #omplement #lause (infiniti2e 2s. su$"un#ti2e)
1
3. Some useful 0"or4ing tools1
(eference defining the relation bet"een "ords and ob#ects mediated $y #on#epts
more a matter of semanti#s (and pragmati#s) than of syntax.
Synta5 6 interested in relations of co-reference, i.e., configurations which allow or disallow an
antecedent-pronoun relation.
Co6reference relations generally hold bet"een 78s+98s (elements that designate uni;ue
indi2iduals, .hose referent is a parti#ular indi2idual) and pronouns
(personal/possessi2e/reflexi2e/re#ipro#al pronouns)
:he 3inding $odule * #on#erned .ith co-reference relations between sentences, i.e., the
reference relations established between overt pronouns
1
and antecedent DPs
it defines the syntactic domains "here pronouns can; must or cannot ha%e an antecedent.
%##ording to their referential 2alen#es, <=s/>=s (nominal & pronominal) are di2ided into three
main #ategories:
a. anaphors (re#ipro#al and reflexi2e pronouns). ?hese must ha%e an antecedent :: la#k of
su#h an ante#edent in the stru#ture .here they appear, ungrammati#ality ensues:
(@) A !imself is smart. / A 9a#h other are upset.
$. personal! pronouns. ?hese are full referential expressions .hi#h #an pi#k up a spe#ifi#
referent in a gi2en #ontext and as su#h need ante#edent >=s for .ell*formedness.
* the role of syntax/grammar is to spe#ify the en2ironments .here #o*referen#e relations are/are not
allo.ed. 6or instan#e, in (B) the su$"e#t he #annot $e #o*referent .ith the dire#t o$"e#t him:
(B) A !e
i
sa. him
i
.
#. lexical NPs. ?hese are free expressions .hose referen#e #annot $e #onstrained $y any
prin#iple of grammar
(C) A Dhe
i
says )ary
i
is smart.
E F? states three general conditions+principles .hi#h regulate the employment of anaphors,
pronouns and lexi#al >=s:
(G) 3inding :heory: cf. Choms4y 1<=1: 1==!
Principle A: An anaphor is bound in its local domain.
Principle B: A pronominal if free in its local domain.
Principle C: An (6e5pression is free.
Clarification points:
H1: Ihat does 0$inding1 refer to exa#tly, &
H2: Ihat does 0lo#al domain1 stand for,
1! 3inding: a #o*referen#e relation $t. an element J and a #*#ommanding element K (the
ante#edent):
1
Din#e 9nglish is a non*pro*drop language, Finding ?heory .ill $e #on#erned .ith the relations $et.een o2ert pronouns and their
ante#edents in this language. 4omanian ho.e2er is a pro*drop language, so null pronominal su$"e#ts .ill also $e taken into a##ount,
alongside o2ert pronominal ones + .ith the #orresponding interpretational differen#es that the t.o types of su$"e#t trigger.
2
(L) Bindin! K $inds J iff,
a. K (the ante#edent) #*#ommands
2
J (the pronominal expression)
$. K is #oindexed .ith J (i.e., they $ear similar features)
/! >ocal 9omain
(M) "ocal Domain
N is a the lo#al domain for J, if N is the minimal category containing ?; a go%ernor of ?
= an element "hich can assign case! and a S@3A'C: accessible to ?.
?he DOFP9/? designates Qthe most prominent nominalR in a gi2en domain. ?his #an $e
a) the su$"e#t in a non*finite #lause or
$) finite Infle#tion (I
S
[%gr) or the su$"e#t in a finite #lause
E
0local domain1 = the domain in "hich an anaphor must be bound and a pronoun must be free.
Exemplification
Remember!
An anaphor needs to be bound by an antecedent in its local domain; i.e.; the pro#ection that
contains it; a case6assigner and a sub#ect accessible to it. ?his is #aptured $y 8rinciple A.
A pronoun must be free in its local domain 6 it #an $e $ound $y a non*lo#al ante#edent or refer
independently .ithout re;uiring a (lo#al) $inder. ?his is #aptured $y 8rinciple 3
(1S) a. [Pohn
i
sa. himself
i
in the mirror.
$. [Pohn
i
sa. him
,i+#
in the mirror.
* in (1Sa), the T> for the anaphor himself is the .hole #lause (I=), sin#e it is the pro"e#tion .hi#h
#ontains it, a go2ernor/#ase assigner for it (the 2er$) and an a##essi$le su$"e#t, i.e., finite infle#tion
(or the lexi#al su$"e#t of the senten#e) :: the anaphor is bound locally. BB 8p A is abided by BB
the sentence is correct
* (1S$), #ontains a pronoun :: in a##ordan#e .ith =rin#iple F a$o2e, it must $e free in its T>,
a##ounting for the dis"oint indi#es.
(11) a. APohn
i
$elie2es [that himself
i
is smart
/=
.
$. Pohn
i
$elie2es [himself
i
to $e smart
I=
#. Pohn
i
$elie2es [that he
i+#
is honest
/=
d. Pohn
i
$elie2es [him
,i+#
to $e honest
I=
* (11a) * ungrammati#al :: the lo#al domain of the anaphor himself is the em$edded #lause + it
#ontains finite infle#tion, $oth a go2ernor/#ase*assigner and an a###essi$le su$"e#t B the anaphor
remains unbound in its local domain; contrary to 8rinciple A B sentence is ungrammatical
2
#-command (4einhart: 1ULG): K #*#ommands J iff e2ery $ran#hing node dominating K dominates J.
(Strict) #-command (%2ram 2SSG: L1): K #*#ommands J if the first $ran#hing node a$o2e K also dominates J
6or example, in a senten#e like (i) $elo., the 2er$ 0pu$lish1 #*#ommands the dire# o$"e#t <= 0the $ook1, sin#e the first $ran#hing node
dominating the 2er$ is V1. !o.e2er, $y the same token it does not #*#ommand the <= 0summer1 (e2en though it dominates it). !o.e2er,
$y the re2ised definition of m*#ommand, the 2er$ m*#ommands $oth <=s, sin#e no. the rele2ant element is the first ma$imal projection
dominating the 2er$, i.e., V=.
(i) !e .ill pu$lish his dissertation in summer.
ii! V8 C m6command!
/ W
Dpe# V1 C strict c6command!
/ W
V ==
/ W / W
pu$lish the in <=
$ook summer
@
* in (11$) non*finite infle#tion #annot define a $inding/lo#al domain, su#h that the T> for himself is
the main #lause this time, gi2en that it #ontains a go2ernor (the main 2er$ believe) and an a##essi$le
su$"e#t (i.e., finite infle#tion) BB the anaphor is bound in its >9; abiding by 8rinciple A.
* (11 #, d): same reasoning: in (11#), the T> is the em$edded #lause, so the pronoun is free in its
domain, in a##ordan#e .ith =rin#iple F3 in (11d), the main #lause is the T>, so that the pronoun
#annot $ear the same index as the lo#al <= ante#edent, sin#e it must $e free in its lo#al domain.
non6finite inflection fails to induce a binding domain but the appearance of a subject can
induce a binding domain for anaphors occuping the object position :: the T> for anaphori#
object pronouns is the infiniti2e #lause itself: it is the minimal domain

.hi#h #ontains the anaphor,
its go2ernor (the 2er$) and an a##essi$le su$"e#t, in this #ase not infle#tion, $ut an a#tual lexi#al
su$"e#t >=:
(12) a. ?hey $elie2e [)ary
i
to admire herself
i

$. ?hey
i
$elie2e [)ary to admire Aea#h other
i
/ them
i

the notion of 0local domain1 + or more pre#isely that of .hat #ounts as an a##essi$le su$"e#t +
is not restricted to only one element in 'nglish; i.e.; finite inflection, depending also on the
mere presence of a le5ical 98 sub#ect in a [6 finite& en%ironment.
Conclusion: generally; anaphors and pronouns are in complementary distribution "ith
respect to their ability to lin4 to an antecedent (1C)3 /on2ersely (6e5pressions referential
78s+98s! cannot be bound at all, not e2en $y a non*lo#al ante#edent, in conformity "ith
8rinciple C 1D!
(1C) a. Frian
i
likes himself
i/A"
.
$. Frian
i
likes him
Ai/"
.
(1G) A Dhe
i+#
is #on2in#ed that )ary
i
hates Dusan
#
.
'mpty categories E binding. Fn the null+o%ert distinction.
So far: the referen#e properties of anaphors and pronouns in 9nglish, a language .hi#h does not
allo. empty su$"e#ts in finite en2ironments (non*pro*drop) :: the term 0anaphor1 or 0pronoun1
in 'n. refers to different types of o!ert elements (i.e., reflexi2es and re#ipro#als are anaphors,
personal and possessi2e pronouns are simply la$eled 0pronouns1 + see a$o2e).
2arious languages (Dp., It., 4o) allo. their su$"e#ts to $e empty in finite senten#es (1L) :he
7ull Sub#ect 8arameter (#f. /homsky 1UM1, Paeggli and Dafir 1UMU)3 this empty pronoun has $een
la$eled pro, to #ontrast it .ith the empty su$"e#t in infiniti2al #ontrol #onfigurations (i.e., =4X).
EDo, the differen#e $et.een =4X and pro is YYYY..
(1L) a. Ion #ite&te 'n #amera lui.
0Ion is reading in his room.1
$. [ * /e fa#e Ion
i
, + pro
i
/ite&te 'n #amera lui.
[Ihat is Ion doing, 0(!e)1s reading in his room.1
#. Ion
i
2rea [s( #iteas#( pro
i+#
.
Ion .ant*@sg [s$" read*@sg
* empty pronouns are (analyZed as) empty #ategories (9/s), #f. /homsky (1UM1, 1UM2, 1UMG).
An 'C [ a gap at the surface structure3 assumed to appear in a sentence "hene%er that
sentence does not ha%e an o%ert le5ical item in a position that is assigned a theta6role (a##. to
the :heta Criterion)
B
* there are G types of 'Cs: wh6trace; 786trace; pro and 8(F3 these (alongside their o2ert
#ounterparts) are des#ri$ed $y means of a #om$ination of features, i.e., 8/* pronominal, 8/* anaphor
(1M)
F%ert 78s 'mpty categories anapho
r
pronominal
4eflexi2e/re#ipro#al
pronouns
<=*tra#e 8 *
=ersonal pronouns pro * 8
4*expressions wh*tra#e * *
=4X 8 8
an 786trace appears as a result of mo2ement/raising: .hen an <= is mo2ed from one argumental
position to another (non*themati#), it lea2es $ehind a tra#e .hi#h must $e properly go2erned (1Ua)
(1U) a. )ary
i
seems t
i
to $e a smart girl.
a wh6trace is left .hen an argument is mo2ed from an %*position to an %1*position (i.e., in the
/=*layer)3 e.g. .hen the d.o. appears as a .h*pronoun in the /*layer of ;uestions in 9nglish (1U$).
$. Ihat
i
did you $uy t
i
at the market,
7.3:
1) "hene%er an argument is mo%ed either to an argumental or to a non6argumental position!;
the trace left behind and its antecedent form a chain they are are co6inde5ed!
2! the referential properties and the distribution of empty categories are sub#ect to the same
principles of 3inding :heory detailed a$o2e the o%ert anaphors and pronouns of 'n. A79
the null i.e.; pro! or o%ert pronominal sub#ects of (omanian are constrained by similar
principles of grammar.
786traces are [H anaphor& liable to 8rinciple A: they ha2e to $e $ound .ithin their o.n T>
:: in (1Ua), non*finite infle#tion #annot indu#e a $inding domain, so that the main #lause $e#omes
the T> for the tra#e left $ehind $y the mo2ed >= 0)ary1 :: the tra#e is $ound in its lo#al domain.
pro is [H pronominal& has to obser%e 8rinciple 3: in (1L#) the empty em$edded su$"e#t
appears a su$"un#ti2e #omplement (i.e., in the presen#e of finite infle#tion) :: pro is free in its T>,
the em$edded #lause, $eing thus a$le to #o*refer either .ith the matrix ante#edent or .ith another,
more remote one, as pro2ided $y the larger #ontext.
wh6%ariables are both [6 pronominal&; [6 anaphor& (on a par .ith o2ert 4*expressions) they
are liable to 8rinciple C.
the #ase of 8(F * more complicated; gi%en its specification as both [H anaphor& and [H
pronominal&: sometimes it $eha2es like an anaphor (2Sa) (in o$ligatory #ontrol #onstru#tions) and
other times like a pronoun (.hen it re#ei2es ar$itrary interpretation) (2S$) it should obey not
only 8rinciple A; but 3 as "ell.
(2S) a. Pohn
i
.ants [=4X
i
to learn from his mistakes.
$. =4X
ar$
?o err is human, =4X
ar$
to forgi2e di2ine.
* the analysis of =4X as the empty su$"e#t of infiniti2al #omplements is dire#tly intert.ined .ith
the #ontrol %odule a #loser look at the main ingredients of control theory next .eek
:o sum up:
$oth lexi#al (o2ert) >=s and empty #ategories (9/) are su$"e#t to the prin#iples of Finding
C
?heory (i.e., =rin#iples % & F)
G