Chapter published in:
Complement Clauses in Portuguese: Syntax and acquisition
Edited by Ana Lúcia Santos and Anabela Gonçalves
[Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 17] 2018
► pp. 129–186

Controlled overt pronouns as specificational predicates

| Universidade of Minho, CEHUM

Szabolcsi (2009) shows that there are languages where control and raising infinitives have overt subjects, in compliance with (1):

(1)
a.

The overt subjects of control complements can only be pronouns.

b.

The overt subjects of raising complements can be pronouns or lexical DPs.

Drawing on data from European Portuguese (as well as Spanish and Italian) we show that the evidence underlying (1) constitutes a strong case in favor of a non-raising approach to obligatory control. Relying on the observation that many consistent Null Subject Languages (NSL) allow for explicit subjects in raising and control complements, we develop an account that aims to capture the association between this phenomenon and the null subject property.

Keywords: infinitival complements, control, raising, null subject language, exhaustive focus
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The data
    • 2.1Obligatory control complements
    • 2.2Raising complements
    • 2.3Discussion
  • 3.Multiple subjects and emphatic pronouns
    • 3.1Evidence that emphatic pronouns are subjects
    • 3.2Multiple subjects in raising and control complements
  • 4.Cross-linguistic differences
  • 5.Some background assumptions regarding the syntax of the consistent NSLs
  • 6.Two possible alternative accounts of controlled pronouns
    • 6.1Alternative 1: Controlled pronouns as pronounced PR
    • 6.2Alternative 2: The controlled pronoun is a doubling DP within a Big-DP
  • 7.The proposal
    • 7.1Hungarian structural focus as predication
    • 7.2Postverbal subjects in the Romance NSLs
  • 8.Infinitival complements revisited
    • 8.1Raising complements
    • 8.2Control complements
  • 9.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 August 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.17.05bar
References
Adger, D., & Ramchand, G.
(2005) Merge and move: Wh-dependencies revisited. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(2), 161–193. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ahn, B. T.
(2010) Not just emphatic reflexives themselves: Their syntax, semantics and prosody (Unpublished PhD dissertation). UCLA.
Alexiadou, A., & Anagnostopoulou, E.
(1998) Parametrizing AGR: Word order, V-movement and EPP-Checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16, 491–539. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., Iordachioaia, G., & Marchis, M.
(2008) A stronger argument for backward control. Talk presented at 39th Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society . Cornell University, November 2008.
Anagnostopoulou, E.
(1997) Clitic left dislocation and contrastive left dislocation. In E. Anagnostopoulou, H. van Riemsdijk, & F. Zwarts (Eds.), Materials on left dislocation (pp. 151–192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bailyn, J. F.
(2004) Generalized inversion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22, 1–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barbosa, P.
(1995) Null subjects (Unpublished PhD dissertation). MIT.
(2000) Clitics: A window into the null subject property. In J. Costa (Ed.), Portuguese syntax: Comparative studies (pp. 31–93). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2009) Two kinds of subject pro . Studia Linguistica, 63(1), 2–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Partial pro-drop as null NP anaphora. In Y. Fainleib, N. Lacara, & Y. Park (Eds.), Proceedings of the 41st annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (Vol. 2, pp. 71–85). Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
(2014)  Pro as a minimal NP (Unpublished manuscript). Retrieved from http://​ling​.auf​.net​/lingbuzz​/001949
Belletti, A.
(2005) Extended doubling on the VP periphery. Probus, 17(1), 1–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brandi, L., & Cordin, P.
(1989) Two Italian dialects and the null subject parameter. In O. Jaeggli & K. Safir (Eds.), The null subject parameter (pp. 111–142). Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burzio, L.
(1986) Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Campos, H.
(1997) On subject extraction and the antiagreement effect in Romance. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 92–119.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A.
(1998) A second thought on emarginazioni: Destressing vs. ‘right dislocation’. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, 8(2), 1–28.Google Scholar
(1999) Italian emphatic pronouns are postverbal subjects. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, 9, 59–92.Google Scholar
(2004) Toward a cartography of subject positions. In L. Rizzi (Ed.), The cartography of syntactic structures – The structure of CP and IP (Vol. 2, pp. 115–165). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ceccheto, C.
(2000) Doubling structures and reconstruction. Probus, 12, 93–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G.
(1990) Anaphora and attitudes de se . In R. Bartsch, J. van Benthem, & P. van Emde Boas (Eds.), Semantics and contextual expression (pp. 1–32). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1977) On wh-Movement. In P. Culicover, T. Wasos, & A. Akmajian (Eds.), Formal syntax (pp. 71–132). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(2000) Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step. Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–155). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G.
(1990) Types of A’-dependencies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1993) A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 239–267.Google Scholar
Clark, R.
(1990) Thematic theory in syntax and interpretation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Costa, J.
(1998) Word order variation. A constraint-based approach. The Hague: HAG.Google Scholar
(2004) Subjects in Spec,vP: locality and agree. In A. Castro, M. Ferreira, V. Hacquard, & A. Salanova (Eds.), Romance syntax (MITWPL 46). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Costa, J., & Duarte, I.
(2002) Preverbal subjects in null subject languages are not necessarily dislocated. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics, 2, 159–176. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Cat, C.
(2007) French dislocation without movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25(3), 485–534. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dermidache, H.
(1992) Resumptive chains in restrictive relative chains, appositives and dislocation structures (Unpublished PhD dissertation). MIT.
É. Kiss, K.
(1995) Discourse configurational languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Focussing as predication. In V. Molnar & S. Winkler (Eds.), The architecture of focus (pp. 169–193). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Elbourne, P.
(2005) Situations and individuals. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Endriss, C., & Hinterwimmer, S.
(2008) Direct and indirect aboutness topics, Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 55(3–4), 297–307. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gast, V.
(2006) The grammar of identity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Heim, I., & Kratzer, A.
(1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Herbeck, P.
(2011) Overt subjects in Spanish control infinitives and the theory of empty categories. Generative Grammar in Geneva, 7, 1–22.Google Scholar
Higgins, R.
(1973) The pseudo-cleft construction in English (Unpublished PhD dissertation). MIT.
Holmberg, A.
(2005) Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 533–564. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N.
(1999) Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 69–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huber, S.
(2000) Es-Clefts und det-Clefts. Zur syntax, semantik und informations struktur von spaltsätzen im Deutschen und Swedischen. Stockholm: Almkist und Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, O.
(1984) Subject extraction and the null subject parameter. North East Linguistic Society, 14, 132–153.Google Scholar
Jelinek, E.
(1984) Empty categories, case, and configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 2, 39–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kallulli, D.
(2008) Clitic doubling, agreement, and information structure. In D. Kallulli & L. Tasmowski (Eds.), Clitic doubling in the Balkan languages (pp. 227–255). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kato, M.
(1999) Strong and weak pronominals in the null subject parameter. Probus, 11, 1–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R.
(1991) Romance clitics, verb movement and PRO. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 647–686.Google Scholar
König, E., & Siemund, P.
(2005) Intensifiers and reflexives. In M. Haspelmath, M. S. Dryer, D. Gil, & N. Comrie (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures (pp. 194–197). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A.
(2009) Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 40, 187–237. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I.
(2015) A two-tiered theory of control. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Livitz, A.
(2011) Incorporating PRO: A defective goal analysis. NYU Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 95–119.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. R.
(2009) PRO, pro, and NP-trace (raising) are interpretations. In K. Grohmann (Ed.), Explorations of phase theory. Features and arguments (pp. 131–179). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. R., & Savoia, L.
(2002) Parameters of subject inflection in Italian dialects. In P. Svenonius (Ed.), Subjects, expletives and the EPP (pp. 157–200). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Martins, A. M.
(1994) Clíticos na história do português (Unpublished PhD dissertation). University of Lisbon.
Müller, G.
(2005)  Pro-drop and impoverishment. In P. Brandt & E. Fuss (Eds.), Form, structure and grammar. A Festschrift presented to Günther Grewendorf on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 93–115). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Noyer, R.
(1992) Features, positions, and affixes in autonomous morphological structure (Unpublished PhD dissertation). MIT.
Ordóñez, F.
(2007) Cartography of postverbal subjects in Spanish and Catalan. In S. Baauw, F. Drijkoningen, & M. Pinto (Eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2005 (pp. 259–280). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ordóñez, F., & Treviño, E.
(1999) Left dislocated subjects and the pro-drop parameter: A case study of Spanish. Lingua, 107, 39–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panagiotidis, P.
(2003) Empty nouns. Natural Language and Linguistic Inquiry, 21(2), 381–432. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Partee, B.
(1987) Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers (pp. 115–143). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Piera, C.
(1987) Sobre la estructura de las cláusulas de infinitivo. In V. Demonte & M. Lagunilla (Eds.), Sintaxis de las lenguas románicas (pp. 148–163). Madrid: Ediciones El Arquero.Google Scholar
Platzack, C.
(2004) Agreement and the person phrase hypothesis. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 73, 83–112.Google Scholar
Poletto, C.
(2000) The higher functional field in the northern Italian dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M., & Potsdam, E.
(2002) Backward control. Linguistic Inquiry, 33, 245–282. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, J. Y.
(1997) Langage et cognition: Introduction au programme minimaliste de la grammaire générative. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Postal, P.
(1966) On so-called “pronouns” in English. In F. Dinneen (Ed.), Report on the seventeenth annual round table meeting on linguistics and language studies (pp. 177–206). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Raposo, E.
(1994) Affective operators and clausal structure in European Portuguese and European Spanish. (Unpublished manuscript). University of California at Santa Barbara, CA.
Rigau, G.
(1987) Sobre el carácter quantificador de los pronombres tónicos en Catalán. In V. Demonte & M. F. Lagunilla (Eds.), Sintaxis de las lenguas románicas. Madrid: Textos Universitarios.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L.
(1978) A restructuring rule in Italian syntax. In S. J. Keyser (Ed.), Recent transformational studies in European languages. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1982) Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1997) The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) On some properties of subjects and topics. In L. Brugé, G. Giusti, N. Munaro, W. Schweikert, & G. Turano (Eds.), Proceedings of the XXX Incontro di Grammatica Generativa. Venezia: Cafoscarina.Google Scholar
Rohrbacher, B.
(1993) The Germanic VO languages and the full paradigm: A theory of V to I raising (Unpublished PhD dissertation). UMass at Amherst.
Sanchez, L.
(1995) Syntactic structures and nominals: A comparative study of Spanish and Southern Quechua (Unpublished PhD dissertation). University of Southern California.
Solà, J.
(1992) Agreement and subjects (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
Speas, M.
(1994) Null arguments in a theory of economy of projections. In E. Benedicto & J. Runner (Eds.), Functional projections (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 17, pp. 179–208). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A.
(1981) The semantics of Topic-Focus articulation. In J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Formal methods in the study of language (pp. 513–541). Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.Google Scholar
(2009) Overt nominative subjects in infinitival complements cross-linguistically: Data, diagnostics, and preliminary analyses. NYU Working Papers in Linguistics – Papers in syntax Spring 2009, 2, 1–55.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, K.
(1978) On the NIC, vacuous application and the that-trace Filter (Unpublished manuscript). MIT.
Tomioka, S.
(2003) The semantics of Japanese null pronouns and its cross-linguistic implications. In K. Schwabe & S. Winkler (Eds.), The interfaces: Deriving and interpreting omitted structures (pp. 321–340). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Torrego, E.
(1985) Pronouns and determiners: A DP analysis of Spanish nominals (Unpublished MA dissertation). UMass at Boston.
(1995) On the nature of clitic doubling. In H. Campos & P. Kempchinsky (Eds.), Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory (pp. 251–275). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
(1996). On quantifier float in control clauses. Linguistic Inquiry, 27(1), 111–126.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J.
(1995) Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry, 26, 79–123.Google Scholar
Vallduví, E.
(1992) A preverbal landing site for quantificational operators. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 1992, 319–344. Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Wedgwood, D.
(2005) Shifting the focus: From static structures to the dynamics of interpretation. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
(2009) Variation in focus. In A. Riester & E. Onea (Eds.), Focus at the syntax-semantics interface, Working Papers of the SFB 732 (Vol. 3, pp. 101–119). University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, H.
(2012) There is only one way to agree. The Linguistic Review, 29, 491–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L.
(1998) Word order, prosody and focus. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Szécsényi, Krisztina
2021.  In Non-canonical Control in a Cross-linguistic Perspective [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 270], ► pp. 167 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 08 october 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.