Cover not available
Part of
Romance Linguistics 2013: Selected papers from the 43rd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), New York, 17-19 April, 2013
Edited by Christina Tortora, Marcel den Dikken, Ignacio L. Montoya and Teresa O'Neill
[Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 9] 2016
► pp. 341–360

Some notes on falloir, devoir, and the theory of control

| The Pennsylvania State University

This article sheds new light on the structure and meaning of sentences containing the French modal verbs devoir and falloir, as well as on the syntax and semantics of Control generally. Well-known and previously unnoticed empirical facts are examined that support the author’s novel contention that falloir and devoir are syntactically and semantically ambiguous. These data are also argued to offer indirect support for the analysis of Control clauses recently developed in Reed (2014: Ch. 6 and 7), according to which there is a theoretical primitive (pro) and it is associated with a “minimal” feature bundle consisting of just [−expletive] and [+N] syntactic features, with a separate, post-syntactic Theory of Control determining its understood phi-features.

Published online: 3 February 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.9.18ree
References
Authier, J.-Marc and Lisa Reed
2009 “French Tough-Movement Revisited.” Probus 21 (1): 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bach, Emmon
1979 “Control in Montague Grammar.” Linguistic Inquiry 10 (4): 515–531.Google Scholar
Barbiers, Sjef
1995 The Syntax of Interpretation. The Netherlands: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko
2007 “The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation: An Economy Approach.” Minimalist Syntax: The Essential Readings ed. by Željko Bošković and Howard Lasnik, 86–111. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Bowers, John
2002 “Transitivity.” Linguistic Inquiry 33 (2): 183–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1981 Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik
1995 “The Theory of Principles and Parameters.” The Minimalist Program, Noam Chomsky, 13–127. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Culbertson, Jennifer and Géraldine Legendre
2014 “Prefixal Agreement and Impersonal il in Spoken French: Experimental Evidence.” Journal of French Language Studies 24 (1): 83–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dubois, Jean
1969 Grammaire structurale du français: La phrase et les transformations. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Eide, Kristin
2006 Norwegian Modals. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Samuel
1984 “Quantifier-pro and the LF Representation of PRO.” Linguistic Inquiry 15 (3): 499–505.Google Scholar
Grinder, John
1970 “Super Equi-NP Deletion.” Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 297–317. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago.
Harley, Heidi
2011 “A Minimalist Approach to Argument Structure.” The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism ed. by Cedric Boeckx, 427–448. Oxford University Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert
1999 “Movement and Control.” Linguistic Inquiry 30 (1): 69–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huot, Hélène
1974 Le verbe devoir: étude synchronique et diachronique. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1990 Semantic Structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray, and Peter Culicover
2003 “The Semantic Basis of Control in English.” Language 79 (3): 517–556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kajita, Masaru
1967 A Generative-Transformational Study of Semi-Auxiliaries in Present-Day American English. Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.
Kayne, Richard
1969 The Transformational Cycle in French. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
1975 French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
1981 “The Notional Category of Modality.” Words, Worlds, and Contexts. New Approaches in Word Semantics ed. by Hans-Jürgen Eikmeyer and Hannes Rieser, 38–74. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
1991 “Modality.” Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research ed. by Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich, 639–650. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan
2000 Elements of Control: Structure and Meaning in Infinitival Constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 “The Scale of Finiteness and the Calculus of Control.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22 (4): 811–877. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Control in Generative Grammar: A Research Companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard
1992 “Two Notes on Control and Binding.” Control and Grammar ed. by Richard Larson, Sabine Iatridou, Utpal Lahiri, and James Higginbotham, 235–251. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, Roger
2001 “Null Case and the Distribution of PRO.” Linguistic Inquiry 32 (1): 141–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David
1970 “The Two Verbs Begin.” Readings in English Transformational Grammar ed. by Roderick Jacobs and Peter Rosenbaum, 107–277. Waltham, Mass: Ginn and Company.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul
1970 “On Coreferential Complement Subject Deletion.” Linguistic Inquiry 1 (4): 439–500.Google Scholar
Reed, Lisa
2014 Strengthening the PRO Hypothesis. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rooryck, Johan
2000 Configurations of Sentential Complementation. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 “Control via Selection.” New Horizons in the Analysis of Raising and Control ed. by William Davies and Stanley Dubinsky, 281–292. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, John
1969 “Auxiliaries as Main Verbs.” Studies in Philosophical Linguistics Series I ed. by William Todd, 77–102. Evanston: Great Expectations Press.Google Scholar
Ruwet, Nicolas
1972 Théorie syntaxique et syntaxe du français. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Safir, Kenneth
1985 Syntactic Chains. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan, and Carl Pollard
1991 “An Integrated Theory of Complement Control.” Language 67 (1): 63–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin
1985 “PRO and Subject of NP.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3 (3): 297–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992 “Adjunct Control.” Control and Grammar ed. by Richard Larson, Sabine Iatridou, Utpal Lahiri, and James Higginbotham, 297–322. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Michael and Georg Kaiser
2014 “On Expletive Subject Pronoun Drop in Colloquial French.” Journal of French Language Studies 24 (1): 107–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa
1983 “On the Notion ‘Adjunct Subject’ and a Class of Raising Predicates.” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 5: 195–232.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Reed, Lisa A.
2019. Further Implications of French Devoir and Falloir for Theories of Control and Modality. In Contributions of Romance Languages to Current Linguistic Theory [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 95], ► pp. 65 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 april 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.