Cover not available
Part of
Non-canonical Control in a Cross-linguistic Perspective
Edited by Anne Mucha, Jutta M. Hartmann and Beata Trawiński
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 270] 2021
► pp. 137–166

Control from inside

Evidence from Japanese

| Ochanomizu University
Traditional assumptions hold that the reference of complement control PRO is dependent on the reference of a higher argument and that the lexical properties of the embedding predicate are mostly responsible for controller determination. Against such views, this study argues for the possibility that the reference of certain instances of PRO (PC PRO) derives from its own internal structure. The insight comes from Japanese data where certain force suffixes appear in the complements of attitude predicates. These forces are proposed to arise from C-PRO indexical (speaker/addressee) agreement. Similar views have been presented in my previous works (Matsuda 2015a; b, 2017a; b, 2019), with some revisions along the way. This paper provides new supporting data and presents my revised framework.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data
    • 2.1Control as force embedding
    • 2.2Partial control
    • 2.3De se
    • 2.4Nonbiunique selectional relations
    • 2.5Forces in roots
  • 3.Interim summary
  • 4.Extension to English
    • 4.1Subject, object and split control
    • 4.2Partial control
  • 5.How does the force arise clause-internally?
    • 5.1A force-specific head?
    • 5.2Indexical agreement
    • 5.3Creating a de se/te property
  • 6.Associative structure
  • 7.Remaining issues and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 17 September 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.270.05mat
References (60)
References
Adachi, Taro. 2002. Isi-kanyu no modaritii (Modality of intentions and exhortations). In Modaritii (Modality) [Sin Nihongo Bunpoo Sensho 4], Yoshio Nitta, Takashi Masuoka & Yukinori Takubo (eds), 18–41. Tokyo: Kuroshio.Google Scholar
Anand, Pranav & Nevins, Andrew. 2004. Shifty operators in changing contexts. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 14: 20–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2008. The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bennis, Hans. 2007. Featuring the subject in Dutch imperatives. In Imperative Clauses in Generative Grammar: Studies in Honour of Frits Beukema [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 103], Wim van der Wurff (ed.), 113–134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 2003. On finiteness as logophoric anchoring. In Temps et point de vue, Jacqueline Guéron & Liliane Tamowski (eds), 213–246. Nanterre: Université Paris X.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1990. Anaphora and attitude de se . In Semantics and Contextual Expression, Renate Bartsch, Johan van Benthem & Peter van Emde Boas (eds), 1–32. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Crnič, Luka & Trinh, Tue. 2009. Embedding imperatives in English. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13(1): 109–124.Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael. 2003. The Paradigmatic Structure of Person Marking. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Déchaine, Rose-Marie & Wiltschko, Martina. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33(3): 409–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farkas, Donka F. 1988. On obligatory control. Linguistics and Philosophy 11(1): 27–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fujii, Tomohiro. 2006. Some Theoretical Issues in Japanese Control. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Fukui, Naoki. 1986. A Theory of Category Projection and Its Applications. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Grano, Thomas. 2012. Control and Restructuring at the Syntax-Semantics Interface. PhD dissertation, The University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1979. Complement selection and the lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry 10(2): 279–326.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberg, Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Han, Chung-Hye. 2000. The Structure and Interpretation of Imperatives: Mood and Force in Universal Grammar. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Harbour, Daniel. 2016. Impossible Persons. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Ritter, Elizabeth. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78(3): 482–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasegawa, Nobuko. 2009. Agreement at the CP level, clause types and the ‘person’ restriction on the subject. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics 5 [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 58], Ryosuke Shibagaki & Reiko Vermeulen (eds), 131–152. Cambridge MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 2008. Features on bound pronouns. In Phi-Theory: Phi-Features across Modules and Interfaces, Daniel Harbour, David Adger & Susana Béjar (eds), 35–56. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30(1): 69–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Inoue, Kazuko. 2007. Nihongo no moodaru no tokuchoo saikoo (Revisiting the nature of modality in Japanese). In Nihongo no Syubun Gensyoo (Main Clause Phenomena in Japanese), Nobuko Hasegawa (ed.), 227–260. Tokyo: Hituzi.Google Scholar
Jensen, Britta. 2003. Syntax and semantics of imperative subjects. Nordlyd: Tromsø University Working Papers on Language & Linguistics 31: 150–164.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40(2): 187–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1988. Blended quasi-direct discourse in Japanese. In Papers from the Second International Workshop on Japanese Syntax, William J. Poser (ed.), 75–102. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1973. Where epistemology, style and grammar meet: A case study from Japanese. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle. Stephen R. Anderson & Paul Kiparsky (eds), 377–391. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
. 1988. Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. Lingvisticæ Investigationes 12(1): 1–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of Control: Structure and Meaning in Infinitival Constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22(4): 811–877. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Two routes of control, evidence from case transmission in Russian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26(4): 877–924. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Two-tiered Theory of Control, Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Direct variable binding and agreement in obligatory control. In Pronouns in Embedded Contexts at the Syntax-Semantics Interface, Pritty Patel-Grosz, Patrick Georg Grosz & Sarah Zobel (eds), 1–41. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. 1979. Attitude de dicto and de se . The Philosophical Review 88(4): 513–543. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Madigan, Sean. 2008. Obligatory split control into exhortative complements in Korean. Linguistic Inquiry 39(3): 493–502. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsuda, Asako. 2015a. Controller restrictions and embedded force. JELS: Papers from the Conference and from the International Spring Forum of the English Linguistic Society of Japan 32: 77–83.Google Scholar
. 2015b. Complement control without a DP controller. Journal of the Ochanomizu University English Society 5: 29–49.Google Scholar
. 2017a. Shifted indexicals in partial control. JELS: Papers from the Conference and from the International Spring Forum of the English Linguistic Society of Japan 34: 264–270.Google Scholar
. 2017b. Embedded imperatives in control. English Linguistics 33(2): 340–376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Person in Partial Control. PhD dissertation, Ochanomizu University.Google Scholar
Moriyama, Takuro. 2000. Kihon-joho to sentaku-kankei tosite-no modaritii (Modality as basic moods and selective relations). In Modaritii (Modality) [Nihongo no Bunpoo 3], Takuro Moriyama, Yoshio Nitta & Hiroshi Kudo (eds), 3–78. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.Google Scholar
Nitta, Yoshio. 1991. Nihongo no Modaritii to Ninshoo (Modality and Person in Japanese). Tokyo: Hituzi.Google Scholar
Oshima, David Yoshikazu. 2006. Perspectives in Reported Discourse. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Pearson, Hazel. 2013. The Sense of Self: Topics in the Semantics of De Se Expressions. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Percus, Orin & Sauerland, Uli. 2003a. On the LFs of attitude reports. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 7: 228–242.Google Scholar
. 2003b. Pronoun movement in dream reports. In Proceedings of NELS 33, Shigeto Kawahara & Makoto Kadowaki (eds), 265–284. Cambridge MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Portner, Paul. 2004. The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 14: 235–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1970. On coreferential complement subject deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 1(4): 439–500.Google Scholar
Potsdam, Eric. 1996. Syntactic Issues in the English Imperative. PhD dissertation, University of California Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Rooryck, Johan. 2000. Configurations of Sentential Complementation: Perspectives from Romance Languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2003. A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(1): 29–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldor Armann. 2010. On EPP effects. Studia Linguistica 64(2): 159–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stiebels, Barbara. 2007. Towards a typology of complement control. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 47: 1–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uchibori, Asako. 2000. The Syntax of Subjunctive Complements: Evidence from Japanese. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Ueda, Yukiko. 2008. Person restriction and syntactic structure of Japanese modals. Scientific Approaches to Language 7: 123–150.Google Scholar
Vassilieva, Maria. 2005. Associative and Pronominal Plurality. PhD dissertation, SUNY Stony Brook.Google Scholar
. 2008. A syntactic analysis of nominal and pronominal associative plurals. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 14: 339–352.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 2010. What ‘you’ and ‘I’ mean to each other: Person indexicals, self-ascription, and theory of mind. Language 86(2): 332–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11(1): 203–238.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaella, Pak, Miok & Portner, Paul. 2012. A syntactic analysis of interpretive restrictions on imperative, promissive, and exhortative subjects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30(4): 1231–1274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Landau, Idan
2024. Noncanonical Obligatory Control. Language and Linguistics Compass 18:3 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. 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.