Idea Transcript
Avdeling for nordisk språk og litteratur
R-
skrift Arbeidsskrift for nordisk språk og litteratur
Nr. 89/1996
Redaksjonskomite:
Harald Bache-Wiig, Kristian Emil Kristoffersen Gunnar Sivertsen, Arne Torp
NORskrift. Arbeidsskrift for nordisk språk og litteratu.r blir utgitt av Avdeling for nordisk språk og litteratur, Institutt for nordistikk og litteraturvitskap, Universitetet i Oslo. Spørsmål om abonnement kan rettast til Ellen Wingerei, telefon 22 85 70 13.
Adressa til redaksjonen er Avdeling for nordisk språk og litteratur Institutt for nordistikk og litteraturvitskap Boks 1013 Blindern 0315 Oslo
ISSN 0800.7764
INNHOLD
KRISTIAN EMIL KRISTOFFERSEN:
Kontroll og kontrollteoriar ................................................................. 7 JANENGH:
On Control. ....................................................................................... 19 JANENGH:
Uncontrolled PROs without Arbitrary Reference ............................. .49 JANENGH:
Postludium ....................................................................................... .52 JAN ENGH AND KRISTIAN EMIL KRISTOFFERSEN:
Control - A Bibliography ................................................................. .53
Kontroll og kontrollteoriar KRISTIAN EMIL KRISTOFFERSEN
Setningar som dei i (l) oppviser ein type referensielle relasjonar mellom to element som i særleg den generative lingvistiske litteraturen blir referert til ved termen "kontroll". 1 (l) a. b. c. d.
Kari ønska å lære fransk. Kari bad Ola om å lære seg fransk. Ola nekta Kari å lære seg fransk. Ola lova Kari å lære henne fransk.
Generelt kan me karakterisere kontroll som ein semantisk og/ eller ein grammatisk relasjon mellom eit underforstått (dvs. uuttrykt) subjekt til eit predikat, og eit ledd i den lingvistiske konteksten som dette underforståtte subjektet er koreferent med. I (la) er det logiske subjektet for infinitiven lære koreferent med subjektet for det overordna verbet. Me seier at det overordna subjektet KONTROLLERER infinitivssubjektet. Det overordna leddet kan me kalle KONTROLLØR (etter engelsk "controller"). I (lb og c) er det objektet til det overordna verbet som er kontrollør; dette leddet er altså koreferent med det underforståtte subjektet. I (ld) er det igjen subjektet som er kontrollør. l KONTROLL OG KONTROLLØRVAL Avhengig av teoretisk ståstad er det blitt lagt ulike perspektiv på kontrollfenomenet, noko som ofte fører til at forskjellige problemstillingar blir vektlagde. Eit eksempel er Parkas (1988:27-28, I Ikkje bare infinitivsfrasar, men også gerundium, i språk som har slike verbformer, kan vere kontrollerte, jf. f.eks. Harry talked to Bill about kissing Greta (frå Postal1970:470).
Kristian Emil Kristoffersen er stipendiat ved Avdeling for leksikografi, Institutt for nordistikk og litteraturvitenskap, Universitetet i Oslo
8
Kristian Emil Kristoffersen
som stiller opp fleire spørsmål ein kontrollteori etter hennar oppfatting bør kunne gi svar på. For det første må ein adekvat kontrollteori gi svar på kva slags prinsipp som avgjør kva ledd som kan opptre som kontrollører. Leksikalsk-funksjonell grammatikk er eksempel på ein teori der denne problemstillinga er sentraL Ved ein form for kontroll, det som blir kalla "funksjonell kontroll", lar ein funksjonane i setninga avgjøre kva som blir kontrollør av eit underforstått infinitivssubjekt (sjå Lødrup 1989:32). Vidare meiner Farkas at ein kontrollteori må kunne gjøre greie for den syntaktiske og semantiske statusen til både det kontrollerte leddet (altså infinitivssubjektet) og til den konstituenten som infinitivssubjektet inngår i. Det siste spørsmålet Farkas nemner, er korleis val av kontrollør blir bestemt når det er fleire enn ein mogleg kandidat for denne rolla i ei setning. Dette spørsmålet vil stå sentralt i det følgjande. Problemstillinga, som Postal (1970:468) kalla "the control problem", og som eg i det følgjande skal kalle KONTROLLPROBLEMET, trer tydeleg fram i kontrasten mellom (lb,c) på den eine sida, og (ld) på den andre. I alle dei tre setningane finn me tre syntaktiske argument, subjekt, indirekte objekt og infinitivskomplement. Men medan det overordna objektet er kontrollør i (lb og d) (OBJEKTSKONTROLL), så har (ld) kontroll ved det overordna subjektet (SUBJEKTSKONTROLL). Det sentrale spørsmålet i dette tilfellet er altså kvifor dei to første setningane har objektskontroll mens den siste har subjektskontroll. Det finst fleire forslag til svar på dette spørsmålet i den grammatiske litteraturen. På den eine sida er det dei reint syntaktiske analysane, som ser val av kontrollør anten som ei følgje av syntaktiske funksjonar eller strukturelle relasjonar. Eg har alt nemnt funksjonell kontroll i LFG. På den andre sida står ulike typar av semantiske analysar.z I denne korte presentasjonen skal eg først og fremst omtale semantiske analysar som tar utgangspunkt i tematiske relasjonar som agens, patiens, etc. Men først skal eg kort omtale to reint strukturelle I tillegg til syntaktiske og semantiske analysar finst nokre få tilnærmingar med pragmatisk utgangspunkt eller tilsnitt, f.eks. Comrie (1984) og Cutrer (1993).
2
Kontroll og kontrollteoriar
9
tilnærmingar, Rosenbaum (1970) og Larson (1991), og LPG-analysen av funksjonell kontroll. Eit tidleg forsøk på ei reint strukturell tilnærming til kontrollproblemet er Rosenbaum (1970t som forklarer objektskontroll i setningar av typen (lb og c) som ein konsekvens av at objektet er den nærmaste nominalfrasen til infinitivssubjektet. Av same grunn er det overordna subjektet kontrollør i setningar av typen vist i (la). (ld) skapar problem for Rosenbaums tilnærming, fordi det her er subjektet og ikkje objektet som er kontrollør. I Rosenbaums strukturelle modell blir dermed kontrolløren ved dette verbet ikkje den nærmaste nominalfrasen. Ei anna strukturell tilnærming, som gjør eit forsøk på å løyse dette problemet, er Larson (1991). Han argumenterer ut frå uavhengig evidens for at to engelske verb som promise (subjektskontroll) og force (objektskontroll) har to ulike (abstrakte) Dstrukturar, der kontrolløren begge tilfelle står nærmast infinitivssubjektet. Leksikalsk-funksjonell grammatikk gjør som nernnt greie for val av kontrollør ved ein type kontroll ved hjelp av eit hierarki av syntaktiske funksjonar. I korte trekk fungerer dette slik at viss eit verb styrer både subjekt, objekt og indirekte objekt, så er det indirekte objektet kontrollør; viss verbet styrer subjekt og objekt, så er objektet kontrollør, og viss verbet bare styrer subjekt, så er dette kontrollør. Med unntak av Larson (1991) har ik.kje reint strukturelle tilnærmingar til kontrollproblemet vore særleg vanlege dei siste 15 åra. Ei forklaring på dette kan vere at toneangivande lingvistar alt tidleg på 1980-talet rekna med at svaret på dette spørsmålet var å finne i andre domene enn i det syntaktiske. Ein av desse er Chomsky, som (1981:76) skriv at "[a] natural suggestion is that choice of controller is deterrnined by e-roles or other semantic properties of the verb, or perhaps pragmatic conditions of some sort." Og nettopp teoriar som tar utgangspunkt i "e-roles or other semantic properties of the verb" har stått sentralt i litteraturen om kontroll fram til i dag. Eg vender meg nå til denne typen tilnærmingar.
10
Kristian Emil Kristoffersen
KONTROLLPROBLEMET I LEKSIKALSK SEMANTIKK 2 2.0 Fokus i det følgjande ligg på fire tilnærmingar som klart er i slekt med kvarandre, men som likevel skil seg frå kvarandre på vesentlege punkt: Parkas (1988), Jackendoff (1990), Sag og Pollard (1991) og Farrell (1993).
2.1 Parkas (1988) tar for seg skilnaden i engelsk mellom verb som convince, ask, persuade, force, med objektskontroll, på den eine sida, og promise, med subjektskontroll, på den andre sida. Ved alle desse verba blir kontrollrelasjonen bestemt ved semantikken til heile konstruksjonen, og karakteristisk for både subjekt- og objektkontrollverb er ein ansvarsrelasjon ("RESP[onsibility] relation") mellom kontrollør og infinitivssubjekt. Denne relasjonen er til stades når referenten til subjektet (ved promise) eller objektet (ved convince, etc.) er ansvarleg for at den hendinga som infinitivsleddet refererer til, kjem eller vil kome i stand. Som nemnt er ansvarsrelasjonen felles for semantikken til begge verbgruppene i Parkas' analyse. Skilnaden i kontrollørval mellom subjekt- og objektskontrollverb blir på den andre sida sett som ei følgje av leksikalske eigenskapar ved dei enkelte verbtypane, slik at bestemte leksikalske eigenskapar ved promise er ansvarleg for subjektskontroll ved dette verbet, medan andre eigenskapar er ansvarleg for objektskontroll ved f.eks. convince. Dessverre kjem Parkas i liten grad inn på konkrete aspekt ved desse eigenskapane. 2.2 Ein som tidleg lanserte ein semantisk teori om kontroll var Ray Jackendoff. I fleire arbeid, m.a. Jackendoff (1972, 1987 og 1990), tar han opp ulike semantiske aspekt ved kontrollfenomen, og grunnsynet hans er at ein kan gjøre greie for mange av desse ved ein teori om tematiske roller. I det følgjande konsentrerer eg meg om arbeidet frå1990. Der bygger Jackendoff på Grubers (1976) teori om tematiske roller, som han
Kontroll og kontrollteoriar
11
utvidar i tråd med Culicover og Wilkins (1986). I Jackendoffs grammatiske modell er tematiske roller einingar på eit semantisk representasjonsnivå han kallar konseptuell struktur ("Conceptual structure"; CS), der omgrep og relasjonar mellom omgrep som har lingvistisk relevans, er representerte. Jackendoff presenterer ingen fullstendig analyse av kontrollørval ved infinitivar i engelsk, men gjennom analysane hans av verb som force og try, jf. (2), er det mogleg å danne seg eit bilete av korleis han ser for seg ein teori om kontroll. (2)
a. b.
John forced Mary to leave. John tried to leave.
Begge setningane i (2) har eit infinitivskomplement med eit semantisk subjekt som i Jackendoffs teori må vere bunde til eit element i den overordna setninga. Det underordna subjektet må av (dels) teoriinterne grunnar vere bunde til det nivået der rolleparet "actor-pati.ent", dvs. agens-patiens, er representert. Vidare følgjer det av tydinga til force at nettopp patiens-argumentet, uttrykt ved det overordna objektet, er kontrolløren (Jackendoff 1990:145). Av tilsvarande grunnar blir agensargumentet, som svar ar til subjektet, ved try kontrollør i (2b ). Forholdet mellom subjekts- og objektskontroll når ei setning inneheld fleire potensielle kontrollørar, som kontrasten mellom f.eks. promise og persuade blir ikkje eksplisitt drøfta av Jackedoff 1990. Men ei naturleg følgje av teorien hans er at denne kontrasten skriv seg frå ulike semantiske eigenskapar ved dei to verba. Dette spørsmålet er tatt opp av Farrell (1993) innanfor Jackendoffs teoretiske ramme (sjå nedanfor). Sag og Pollard (1991) presenterer ein analyse av kontrollørval som formelt sett hører heime innanfor den generative modellen HPSG3, men 2.3
3
HPSG
= Head-Driven
Phrase Structure Grammar. Sjå Pollard og Sag (1994) for
12
Kristian Emil Kristoffersen
som i tilnærminga til kontrollproblemet nyttar innsikter frå leksikalsk semantikk. Dei drøftar tre grupper av kontrollverb, representerte ved persuade (3a), promise (3b) og want (3c). (3)
a. b. c.
John persuaded Mary to leave. John promised Mary to leave. John wants to leave.
Ved kvar verbgruppe blir kontrolløren identifisert med utgangspunkt i bestemte semantiske forhold. Felles for dei tre verbklassane som inngår i analysen deira er at dei refererer til ein relasjon mellom eit overordna argument og den situasjonen som infinitivsargumentet refererer til. Desse relasjonane er av ulike slag. Ved objektskontrollverbet persuade reknar Sag og Pollard (1991:66) med ein relasjon P Å VERKNAD ("influence"), der det overordna subjektsargumentet påverkar objektsargumentet til å få stand den situasjonen som infinitivskomplementet refererer til. I denne situasjonen er det tre deltakarar, og altså tre roller: Den som påverkar ("influencer"), den som blir påverka ("influenced"), og argumentet som blir uttrykt ved infinitivskomplementet. Subjektskontrollverbet promise uttrykker ein relasjon FORPLIKTING ("commitment"), der referenten til det overordna subjektsargumentet forpliktar seg til å få i stand den situasjonen som infinitivskomplementet refererer til. I tillegg til desse to argumenta opptrer her eit tredje, som viser til den deltakaren som subjektsargumentet forplikar seg overfor (hos Sag og Pollard "commissee"). Dette argumentet blir ikkje altid uttrykt, som f.eks i setninga John promised to come. I den tredje gruppa i Sag og Pollards analyse finn me verb som want, expect. Relasjonen her er MENTAL ORIENTERING ("orientation"; ein omfattande presentasjon. Denne inneheld også ein revidert versjon av Sag og Pollard (1991).
Kontroll og kontrollteoriar
13
dvs. ønske, forventing, begjær, etc.). Ved desse verba finst det eitt argument i tillegg til det som er uttrykt ved infinitivskomplementet; dette viser til den deltakaren som opplever ønsket, begjæret, etc., og kan kallast perseptiv ("experiencer" hos Sag og Pollard). Val av kontrollør blir i Sag og Pollards teori uttrykt gjennom direkte referanse til desse tre typane av relasjonar. Uformelt kan dette sjåast slik: Avhengig av om kontrollverbet denoterer ein relasjon av typen påverknad (f.eks. persuade), forplikting (f.eks. promise) eller mental orientering (f.eks. want), blir det underforståtte infinitivssubjektet knytt til påverka deltakar, forpliktande deltakar eller perseptiv deltakar. 2.4 Sag og Pollards (1991) analyse av kontrollørval er i hovudsak semantisk basert. Også Farrell (1993) gjør framlegg om ein analyse som fokuserer på semantiske forhold. Analysen hans av kontrollørval i komplementinfinitivar bygger også på tematiske relasjonar. 4 Farrell bygger vidare på Sag og Pollard (1991) og deler kontrollverb i tre semantiske klassar, verb som denoterer påverknad, forplikting og mental orientering. Eit sentralt element i Farrells teori er prinsippet som gjør greie for val av kontrollør. Dette blir formulert med utgangspunkt i dei tre verbklassane, spesielt dei tematiske relasjonane knytte til dei. Farrell forkastar Sag og Pollards individuelle rollenemningar "influenced", "committor" og "experiecer" til fordel for dei to rollene agens og patiens. Kontrollørvalet blir så bestemt gjennom ei hierarkisering av desse rollene. Viss eit kontrollverb viser til både agens og patiens er patiens kontrollør; viss verbet bare viser til agens er dette argumentet kontrollør. Farrell rekner med at pram ise er av denne typen, og at dette gjør greie for subjektskontroll her. 2.5 Parkas (1988), Jackendoff (1990), Sag og Pollard (1991) og Farrell (1993) hevdar alle at kontrollørval er avhengig av leksikalske Farrell formaliserer analysen i Jackendoffs (1990) modell, der kontrollreglar blir formulerte på CS-nivå.
4
Kristian Emil Kristoffersen
14
eigenskapar ved det enkelte kontrollverb (eller kontrollverbklasse). Hos Parkas er ikkje desse eigenskapane spesifiserte. Hos dei tre andre er eigenskapane formulerte ved hjelp av nemningar som viser til tematiske relasjonar mellom kontrollverbverb og arguementa deira. Etter mitt syn er desse analysane på rett spor. På den andre sida reiser dei fleire spørsmål. Eit av dei mest framtredande problema går på det semantiske grunnlaget for klassifikasjonen av kontrollverb. Kor innlysande er det f.eks. å plasserere force og permit i same gruppe. Sag og Pollard (1991) kallar kontrolløren her "influenced participant", Jackendoff (1990) og Farrell (1993) nyttar termen "patient". For force gir dette innsikt, for permit kan det synast forvirrande, og bryt vidare med den tradisjonelle oppfattinga av patiens som "affected entity" (Jackendoff 1990:125f.). Eit liknande problem oppstår når try blir plassert i same gruppe som promise (Sag og Pollard; Farrell). Det siste er eit godt eksempel på eit verb som viser til ein forpliktingsrelasjon; det første er det ikkje. Dette kjem ikkje minst til synes ved at bare promise tillett eit argument som viser til "mottakaren" av forpliktinga.
3
OM KONTROLLPROBLEMET I NORSK
3.0 Dei forholda som er tatt opp i litteraturen som er referert ovanfor, er i liten grad drøfta med utgangspunkt i norsk. I dei tre norske innføringsbøkene som er skrivne i generativ syntaks, Hovdhaugen (1971), Lorenz (1979) og Nordgård og Åfarli (1990), finst det lite om kontrollproblemet. Den sistnemnde drøftar bindingsforhold i kontrollkonstruksjonar, men forfattarane seier eksplisitt (s. 162) at dei ikkje ønskjer å gå inn på kontrollproblemet. Dei to tidlege bøkene nemner ikkje kontrollproblemet i det heile. Den første som etter det eg kjenner til drøftar skilnaden i kontrollørval mellom love og f.eks. nekte i eit teoretisk perspektiv, er Hanssen (1972:170f.),s som ser subjektskontroll ved love som ei følgje av at dette verbet "oppfører seg noe eiendommelig syntaktisk sett". Aspekt s Hanssen (1972) nyttar ikkje termen "kontroll".
Kontroll og kontrollteoriar
15
ved kontrollproblemet i forhold til norsk blir også tatt opp i ein artikkel av Jan Engh, som opprinneleg blei skriven i 1982, og som er trykt i dette nummeret av Norskrift. Det sentrale temaet i Enghs arbeid er eit aspekt ved kontrollproblemet som i litteraturen er omtala som "controller shift" (på norsk: KONTROLLØRSKIFTE), dvs. at eitt og same verb kan ha subjektskontroll i ein samanheng og objektskontroll i ein annan. Fenomenet er illustrert med love i (4). (4) a. b.
Per lova Kari å reise. Per lova Kari å få reise.
I (4a) opptrer love med subjektskontroll. (4b) derimot vil dei fleste tolke slik at objektet er kontrollør for infinitivssubjektet, altså objektskontroll. Eit liknande fenomen kan observerast ved verbet be: (5)
a. b.
Per bad Kari om å reise. Per bad Kari om å få reise.
be tar normalt objektskontroll, som i (Sa). Men i (5b) finn me subjektskontroll. Legg merke til at infinitivskomplementa i begge dei avvikande setningane (4b) og (Sb) inneheld verbet få. Engh fokuserer i artikkelen sin særleg på tre verb, love, tilby og garantere, som han i utgangspunktet reknar som subjektskontrollverb; objektskontroll oppstår under bestemte vilkår, som aspekt, valens og kontekstuelle faktorar. Eit anna spørsmål som blir drøfta, er kva konsekvens det får for kontrolørval at infinitivskomplementet inneheld hjelpeverbet få, jf, (4b) og (Sb). Forholdet mellom kontrollørskifte og få blir også drøfta i Faarlund (1985). Faarlund ser på to konstruksjonar der få skapar ein spesiell semantikk, imperativar som den i (6) og kontrollkonstruksjonar som den i (7):
Kristian Emil Kristoffersen
16
(6) Få den avisa. (7)
Jon bad læraren om å få gå tidleg. Det underforståtte subjektet ved imperativen i (6) er ikkje 2. person, som er det vanlege ved imperativar, men l. person. I (7) fører bruken av få til at det underforståtte subjektet i infinitiven er bunde til det overordna subjektet, og ikkje objektet, som er det normale. Faarlund forklarar kontrollørvalet i (7) etter følgjande linjer: Både imperativ og den underordna infinitivsfrasen til be uttrykker ordrar eller oppmodingar. Slike ordrar blir normalt retta mot den deltakaren som set i gang den handlinga (er "causer") som imperativen eller infinitiven denoterer, altså normalt subjektet for desse konstruksjonane, og i infinitivsfrasen under be også det overordna objektet. Men viss få inngår i imperativen eller infinitivsfrasen, er det ikkje lenger det underforståtte subjektet som er "årsak" til handlinga; dermed oppstår det eit brot i (7) mellom underforstått subjekt og overordna objekt som gjør subjektskontroll mogleg. Faarlund prøver også å isolere dei eigenskapane ved få som gir dette verbet slike særeigne syntaktiske og semantiske eigenskapar. Han reknar med at det er inkoativt og at det tar eit subjekt med den tematiske rolla "recipient". Subjektsreferenten har inga vilje eller intensjon knytt til å utføre handlinga.
4
OPPSUMMERING
Det viktigaste målet med framstillinga ovanfor har vore å gi ein kort presentasjon av ein type tilnærmingar til det som har blitt kalla kontrollproblemet, dvs. spørsmålet om kva prinsipp som ligg til grunn for val av kontrollør ved ulike kontrollverb. Eg har fokusert på syntaktiske teoriar som prøver å forklare kontrollørval ved hjelp av
Kontroll og kontrollteoriar
17
syntaktiske funksjonar eller strukturelle konfigurasjonar, og vidare på semantiske teoriar som bygger på tematiske relasjonar i sine forklaringar av dette fenomenet. I siste delen har eg også gitt eit kort oversyn over sentrale problemstillingar i to norske arbeid om kontroll, Faarlund (1985) og artikkelen "On control" av Jan Engh, som blir presentert i dette nummeret av Norskrift.
LITTERATUR
Bresnan, Joan W. 1982 (red.). The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Comrie, Bernhard. 1984. Subject and object control: Syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Brugman, Claudia og Monica Macaulay (red.): Proceedings of the tenth annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society. Berkeley: University of California. Culicover, Peter W. og Wilkins, Wendy. 1986. Control, PRO, and the projection principle. Language 62:120-153. Cutrer, L Michelle. 1993. Semantic and syntactic factors in control. Van Valin 1993:167-196. Engh, Jan. 1982. On control. Trykt i dette nummeret av Norskrift. Parkas, Donka F. 1988. On obligatory control. Linguistics and philosophy 11:27-58. Farrell, Patrick 1993. The interplay of syntax and semantics in complement control. Føredrag heldt ved SALT HL Faarlund, Jan T. 1985. Imperative and control. First person imperatives in Norwegian. Nordic journal of linguistics 8:149-160 .. Gruber, Jeffrey S. 1976. Lexical structures in syntax and semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
18
Kristian Emil Kristoffersen
Hanssen, Eskil: 1972, Den underordnete setning: om forholdet mellom at-setning og infinitivfrase i norsk. Norsk tidsskrift for sprogvidenskap. 26:165-77 Hovdhaugen, Even. 1971. Transformasjonen generativ grammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press. Jackendoff, Ray. 1987. The status of thematic relations in Linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18:369-411. Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press. Larson, Richard K. 1991. Promise and the theory of control. Linguistic Inquiry 22:103-139. Lorenz, Ove. 1979. Norsk setningsform: et kompendium transformasjonssyntaks. Oslo: Novus. Lødrup, Helge. 1989. Indirekte objekter i LFG. Norskrift 60:19-36. Nordgård, Torbjørn og Tor A Åfarli. 1990. Generativ syntaks. Ei innføring via norsk. Oslo: Novus. Pollard, Carl and Sag, Ivan A 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago press. Postal, Paul M. 1970. On coreferential complement subject deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 1:439-500. Rosenbaum, Peter S. 1970. A principle governing deletion in English sentential complementation. Jacobs, R.A. og Rosenbaum, P.A. (red.): Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn and Company. Sag, Ivan A. og Pollard, Carl. 1991. An integrated theory of complement controL Language 67:63-113. Thrainsson, Hoskuldur. 1979. On complementation in Icelandic. New York: Garland. Van Valin, Robert D. (red.). 1993. Advances in role and reference grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
On Control* JANENGH In this article, some observations on control in Chomsky 1981 are discussed on the basis of Norwegian sentences with infinitives as verbal complements. It is demonstrated that control is not exc!usively a result of configurational structure and of inherent properties of the matrix verb. Many verbs may appear in sentences with varying control relations, depending on the intension of the infinitival complement, the intension and the extension of the NPs, and contextual features. Meaning in a broad sense is essential to control structure. Further, the interdependence of control and passive is described, and some differences between Norwegian and English are pointed out.
In the Extended Standard Theory, empty categories are of crucial in-
terest. But as far as PRO is concerned, research has been concentrated mainly around the question of where PRO may or must appear. Comparatively few linguists within EST take much interest in the possible references of PROs; and when they do, their analysis seems to be somewhat biased by the generally accepted view of control in EST as prindpally a syntactic phenomenon. Correspondingly, control theory is the least developed subsystem of EST. In my opinion, this situation is partly due to the rather restricted definition of the notion of control, where the importance of control as a syntactic property of the verb and a configurational characteristic of the sentence is emphasized . ... control will be assigned by virtue of properties of the matrix verb ... (Chomsky and Lasnik 1977:440) If ... there is no governing verb that assigns control, the embedded subject is
assigned an arbitrary index. We understand [NP e] with an index that is not coindexed to an antecedent to be arbitrary in reference. (ibid.) * I would like to thank Barbara Bird and Andrew Jones for helping me with the
English data, and Thorstein Fretheim, Dag Gundersen, Per Kristian Halvorsen, and especially Kirsti Koch Christensen and Kari Anne Rand Schmidt for commenting on a preliminary draft. Needless to say, none of them are to be blamed for possible errors and deficiencies.
Jan Engh er førstebibliotekar ved Universietsbiblioteket i Oslo.
20
Jan Engh
Conversely, the role of semantics is neglected to a large extent, in spite of good intentions. Control ... presumably has to do with the semantics of infinitival constructions, an interesting but poorly understood question. (Chomsky and Lasnik 1977:443)
Chomsky 1980 does not reflect any deep change of attitude in this resped. In Lectures on Government and Binding, however, Chomsky accords greater importance to factors outside the domain of syntax proper, as he sums up that the theory of control involves a number of different factors: structural configurations, intrinsic properties of verbs, other semantic and pragmatic considerations (Chomsky 1981:78). Not surprisingly, Chomsky has little to say about the pragmatic aspects of control. More interesting is the negligible space given to other semantic considerations. But, Chomsky continues, Sorting these factors out and explaining the cross-linguistic differences and similarities remains an apen question. In this article, I shall make an inquiry into sentences such as (1), with special regards to the parts of the sentence other than the matrix verb. (l)
Frank persuaded Mary to leave
The analysis will concentrate on the infinitival complement, systematizing some of the more casual observations of Chomsky (1981:76). The discussion will be based on data from Norwegian, which I shall compare with the sentence structure of English where such a contrast may be of interest to linguistic theory. In l. attention is given to passivization, a syntactic operation with a specific relationship to the control phenomenon. Further, it is shown that in different grammatical traditions, the question of control is viewed as an inherent property of the matrix verb. In 2. the idea of verbs
On Control
21
of subject control is discussed. It is demonstrated that the type of infinitival complement plays an important part in determining the control relation in the sentence. In 3. the analysis is extended from sentences in vacuo to sentences in context, while in 4. the role of the auxiliary infinitive FÅ is discussed with respect to control structure and passivization. 5. contains a brief discussion of the connexion between the meaning of the NPs in the sentence and its control structure, and 6. compares certain sentences with infinitival complement to sentences with perfect participle as a verbal complement. In 7. the difference between Norwegian and English is discussed, and finally, 8. concludes the article, mentioning possible consequences for the theory of control.
1. CONTROL AND VOICE. VISSER'S HYPOTHESIS An English sentence in the active with an infinitival complement of the predicate and with object control may be transformed into a corresponding sentence in the passive with subject control.l (l)
Frank persuaded Mary to leave
(2)
Mary was persuaded by Frank to leave
This operation is impossible if the sentence is characterized by subject control in the active. (3)
Mary promised Frank to leave
(4)
*Frank was promised by Mary to leave2
Despite the use of terms such as to transform, and passivization, the present discussion is not based on any particular syntactic analysis of the relationship between active and passive sentences. I shall not be taking a stand in the controversy of how to derive sentences in the active and in the passive; from one or from different deep structures, and possibly, whether sentences in the passive ought to be generated in the lexicon or on a sentence or phrase level. I cannot see that my inquiry presupposes the one or the other conception of voice. l
22
Jan Engh
In An Historical Syntax of the English Language, Visser maintains that ... a passive transform is only possible when the complement relates to the immediately preceding (pro)noun. (Visser 1973:2118)
One instance of this rather general rule, is that the only grammatical sentences in the passive equal those active sentences whlch are characterized by object control. In several articles on verbal cornplernentation, this has been referred to as V isser' s generalization.3 If the regularity described by Visser applies whenever the conditions for its application are met, one might as well have called it V isser' s law, with a slight flavour of Junggramrnarian syntax. I shall adopt Visser's law as a designation of the hypothesis that the regularity observed by Visser applies without exceptions. With certain modifications, this is also what others seern to mean by the term Visser's generalization. On the face of it, Norwegian displays the same regularities as to the convertibility of sentences in the passive and in the active as we find in English. Let us start by considering the active sentences (5) and (7) with object control and their passive counterparts. (5)
Lars anbefalte Roar å sove Lars recommended Roar PRORoar to sleep4
(6)
Roar ble anbefalt av Lars å sove Roar was recommended by Lars PRORoar to sleep
I shall use the asterisk in order to mark that sentences are ungrammatical or unacceptable, if something else is not indicated. Correspondingly, I shall use terms like ungrammatical and unacceptable with roughly the same meaning. Especially in sentences like those discussed in this article it is extremely difficult if feasible at all - to draw a clear borderline between ungrammaticality and unacceptability in the sense of Chomsky 1965. 3 E.g. Bach 1980 and Bresnan 1982. See also Bresnan 1978 and Wasow 1977. 4 The Norwegian gloss will be given word for word, regardless of the possible ungrammaticality of the English rendering. PROx is inserted in order to indicate the control relation that holds within the sentence. 2
On Control
(7)
Lars anbefalte Roar å ete hvalbiff Lars recommended Roar PRORoar to eat whale steak
(8)
Roar ble anbefalt av Lars å ete hvalbiff Roar was recommended by Lars PRORoar to eat whale steak
23
To my knowledge, nobody has ever formulated any Visser's law for Norwegian, however. But without using the term, the control phenomenon is of course described in an informal manner by traditional grammarians, e.g. Falk and Torp (1900:196 and 199). They mention different verbs in connexion with each type of control. A contemporary linguist, Eskil Hanssen, also discusses the subject, explicitly making the question of control a property of the matrix verb (Hanssen 1972). In his article, Hanssen contends that even if a verb permits the duster of transformations (in his theoretical framework), leading to the equivalent of the English THAT-dause or an infinitival clause, there are examples which indicate that the infinitival clause can only be used when the subjects of the matrix sentence and the implied subject of the dause have identical reference. For instance, (9) can only be a transform of (10). (9)
Hamlet lovte moren å reise Hamlet promised his mother to leave
(10)
Hamlet love [moren+ [dative]] [Hamlet reise]
The verb LOVE 'promise', he contends, requires that the subject of the clause must be coreferent with the subject of LOVE (Hanssen 1972: 170f.). There are many sentences, however, that could be interpreted as counterexamples to the application of Visser's law in Norwegian, e.g. (11).
Jan Engh
24
(11)
Roar ble lovt av Lars å komme inn Roar was promised by Lars to come in
This applies not only to the verb LOVE, but also to verbs like GARANTERE 'guarantee' and TILBY 'offer'. I will refer to verbs taking object control as OC-verbs, as opposed to verbs like LOVE etc. which belong to the group of verbs that it is most convenient to call SC-verbs, as they are generally associated with subject control. SC-verbs exhibit what Chomsky calls strong preference, perhaps requirements in the respect of subject control (Chomsky 1981:76), and, informally, they are often referred to by EST-linguists and by others simply as verbs of subject control. Against thls background, it is most natural to interpret Visser's law as predicting that no active sentence with a SC-verb may be transformed into an equivalent sentence in the passive. In this case, (11) appears to be a counterexample to Visser's law in Norwegian, which, as a consequence, cannot be the instantiation of a universal regularity either. But at a second glance, (11) must be construed in a way which implies subject control. The prepositional adverb av Lars 'by Lars' does not function as the controller. One might have expected this for two reasons: LOVE is a SC-verb. The passive sentence generally renders the converse relation of the content of the equivalent sentence in the active, representing the logical subject as a prepositional adverb. The reason for the unexpected control relation in (11) must be sought in the corresponding active sentence itself, (12), in which there is no subject control.
(12)
Lars lovte Roar å komme inn Lars promised Roar to come in
On Contra/
25
Rather it is possible to interpret (12) as exhibiting object control, just like a sentence in the active with e.g. ANBEFALE 'recommend' as matrix verb, cf. (5) - (8). One may interpret the isolated sentence (12) as being distinguished by subject control too, but it is not a sentence with the kind of semantic content which equals (11). The discussion of (11) has two important implications. If we adopt an interpretation of Visser's law such that no active sentence characterized by subject control may be transformed into an equivalent sentence in the passive - which in my opinion is the only plausible interpretation- Visser's law applies to Norwegian nevertheless. The second implication of theoretical importance is that the control relation of the sentence is not unambiguously determined by the syntactic properties of the matrix verb.
2. VERBS OF SUBJECT CONTROL ? Like English, Norwegian possesses two groups of verbs that may take subject control; those which are capable of taking an indirect object (e.g. LOVE, GARANTERE, and TILBY), and those which lack this capability (e.g. FORSØKE 'try' and FORTSETTE 'continue'). The factor underlying the control structure of (11) and (12) is the capability of the verbs of the former group to appear as matrix verbs in sentences with subject or object control. I shall refer to this group of verbs as the SC*-verbs. Their ambiguity as to control becomes more salient in sentences like (13), which equals (14).
(13)
Lars lovte Roar å slippe inn på sjuer'n Lars promised Roar toget in at the 7 o'dock performance, viz. Lars promised Roar that heRoar should get admittance to ...
26
Jan Engh
(14)
Roar ble lovt av Lars å slippe inn på sjuer'n Roar was promised by Lars toget in at the 7 o'clock performance, viz. Roar was promised by Lars that heRoar should get admittance to ...
As indicated in the gloss, the only reasonable interpretation of (13)
implies object control. This double control property depends on several other semantic characteristics of the sentence. In both (11) and (14), we may interpret the infinitival complement as (15). (15)
' ... to have the permission to ... '
In other words, there is a certain semantic element of a normative kind ('permissive'), operating on the control structure of the sentence.s An additional property of (11) and (14), which turns out to be of interest to the present discussion, is that both sentences contain infinitives of intransitive verbs with a perfective intension. There are exceptions to this regularity, however. Some LOVE-sentences containing an infinitival complement with a perfective intension cannot be immediately interpreted by native speakers as characterized by object control, e.g. (16). (16)
Lars lovte Roar å komme Lars promised Roar PROLars to come
But no infinitive of an intransitive verb with a non-perfective intension can function as a verbal complement in a sentence with object control, cf. (17).
5 This
is not as transparent a fact to the non-linguist, native speaker of Norwegian as it rnight appear from the English rendering, however.
On Control
(17)
27
Lars lovte Roar å le *Lars promised Roar PRORoar to laugh6 Lars promised Roar PROLars to laugh
Sentences of this kind obviously have no grarnmatical counterpart in the passive. (13)
*Roar ble lovt av Lars å le
This holds when the matrix verb is GARANTERE or TILBY as well. When the infinitive of the complement is a verb which is used transitively, the verbs of the SC*-group display different characteristics. Two factors seem to be of importance, semantic properties of the NPs in the sentence and the intension of the infinitival complement. Only the latter will be dealt with in this section.7 LOVE and GARANTERE have subject control, and corresponding sentences in the passive are ungrammatical. (19)
Lars lovte Roar å kjøpe en brus Lars promised Roar PROLars to buy a lemonade
(20)
*Roar ble lovt av Lars å kjøpe en brus Roar was promised by Lars to buy a lemonade
On the other hand, TILBY allows object control, and consequently corresponding passive sentences, cf. (21) and (22). (21)
6 7
Lars tilbød Roar å kjøpe huset Lars offered Roar PRORoar to buy the house
I.e. (17) is unacceptable in the sense intended. The importance of the NPs in the sentence will be discussed in section 5.
Jan Engh
28
(22)
Roar ble tilbudt av Lars å kjøpe huset Roar was offered by Lars PRORoar to buy the house
But if one substitutes the infinitive SELGE 'seil' for KJØPE, however, the control structure is altered. Cf. (23), which may only be given an interpretation with subject control. (23)
Lars tilbød Roar å selge huset Lars offered Roar PROLars to seil the house
In this particular case, the conclusion must obviously be that when the infinitival complement in a TILBY-sentence with one particular control structure expresses a relation of a specific kind, another sentence, with an infinitive expressing the converse relation, must be construed with the opposite control structure.s The general pattem seems to be the following, however: If a verb which may function as the matrix predicate of a sentence with subject control, occurs in a sentence characterized by object control and consequently making it possible to form a corresponding sentence in the passive, the following conditions must be fulfilled: If the matrix verb is either LOVE, GARANTERE, or some other verb sharing their essential properties, the infinitive must be an intransitive verb or a verb which is used intransitively, and in both cases the infinitive must have a perfective intension. If the matrix verb is TILBY, the infinitive may also be of a transitive verb. But there is one transitive verb which produce object control in sentences with all members of the SC*-group, FÅ 'get' as a full verb. (24)
Lars lovte Roar å få en brus Lars promised Roar PRORoar to get a lemonade
What kind of infinitives expressing what sort of relations that goes with what matrix verbs is another matter, which has to be dealt with elsewhere.
8
On Contra!
(25)
29
Roar ble lovt av Lars å få en brus9 Roar was promised by Lars PRORoar to get a lemonade
So, the question of control in sentences containing those verbs which are usually known as verbs of subject control, turns out to be a rather complicated matter; and the semantic properties of the infinitival complements are of great importance. But for the sake of descriptive economy, let us concentrate on LOVE, and pursue its properties a little further.
3. SENTENCES WITH AND WITHOUT A CONTEXT
What has been said about the relationship between transitivity and control, applies when the sentence in question occurs in vacuo. As a matter of fact, they very seldom do, and linguistic contexts will modify the regularities described above. LOVE-sentences with an infinitive of a transitive verb may be interpreted with object control as well, if there are unmistakable cues to this effect in the context. (26)
Lars lovte Roar å hogge ved. Han måtte bare finne ei øks som ikke var for tung for Roar først Lars promised Roar to chop wood. He only first had to find an axe which was not too heavy for Roar
The same situation obtains in the case of sentences with intransitive infinitives, which cannot be immediately interpreted as controlled by the object. Sentences such as (24) and (25) are synonymous to corresponding sentences without any infinitival complement, cf.
9
Lars lovte Roar en brus Lars promised Roar a lemonade Roar ble lovt en brus av Lars Roar was promised a lemonade by Lars
(27)
Lars lovte Vigdis å komme først, men Roar greide å snike seg inn før henne i køen Lars promised Vigdisfem. to come/be first, but Roar managed to slip in before her in the queue
It is a necessary condition for the object conl:rol interpretation of
all sentences with SC*-verbs as matrix predicates that the action denoted by the infinitive is of a krnd which it is reasonable to have another person's permission to do. Any other interpretation than the one implying subject control is therefore precluded in the case of both (28) and (29). (28)
Lars lovte Roar å våkne Lars promised Roar PROLars to wake up
(29)
Lars lovte Roar å skjære ned på universitetsbudsjettet Lars promised Roar PROLars to cut down the university's budget
Special stress and intonation, emphasizing the second NP in the sentence, may play a role parallel to a possible linguistic context in determining the control relation. There are sentences with LOVE, however, in which only a linguistic context of the appropriate kind is capable to induce object control. Only in sentences with an infinitival complement of an intransitive verb with a perfective content, can stress and intonation produce object control where it is unlikely for other reasons.
On Contra/
31
Some infinitives
con tro l
and their properties
in
spee.
spee.
with respect to
vacuo
stress
con-
transitivity and
and
text
perfectivity
inton. writ-
oral
ten
text
text
written text
trans. HOGGE (26)
Lars lovte Roar å hogge ved
s
s
o
s
s
o
s o o
o o o
intr./non-perf. LE (17)
Lars lovte Roar å le
intr./perf. KOMME (INN), SLIPPE INN P Å SJUER'N (16)
Lars lovte Roar å komme
s
(12)
Lars lovte Roar å komme inn
SlO
(13)
Lars lovte Roar å slippe inn på sjuer'n
o
Figure l . LOVE with object control Necessary condition: It must be reasonable to have another person's permission to perform the action denoted by the infinitival complement.
4. MORE ON VISSER AND ON NORWEGIAN There exists another way in which to give all Norwegian sentences in the active with SC*-verbs as matrix predicate acceptable counterparts in the passive, by inserting a FÅ (MAY in the sense of 'have permission to') as an auxiliary.
Jan Engh
32
(30)
Lars lovte Roar å få le Lars promised Roar PRORoar to mayw laugh
(31)
Roar ble lovt av Lars å få le Roar was promised by Lars PRORoar to may laugh
(32)
Lars lovte Roar å få kjøpe en brus Lars promised Roar PRORoar to may buy a lemonade
(33)
Roar ble lovt av Lars å få kjøpe en brus Roar was promised by Lars PRORoar to may buy a lemonade
This does not cause any problems in connexion with Visser's law, however, since the active sentences have object control, whlle the passive sentences exhibit subject control. As mentioned above, there exists in Norwegian another group of SC-verbs, FORSØKE, FORTSETTE etc. (34)
Lars forsøker å saldere budsjettet Lars tries to balance the budget
(35)
Lars fortsetter å sykle Lars continues to cyde
They never appear in the passive succeeded by an active infinitive, no matter what kind of infinitive, with or without FÅ.ll 10 In Norwegian, modal verbs like FÅ and MÅ 'must' have infinitives. In fact, å få is the infinitive form. Here, to may is intended to render this phenomenon.
On the meaning of the modal FÅ, see note 11. 11 FORSØKE may have FÅ as an infinite auxiliary in active sentences. Lars forsøkte å få saldert budsjettet Lars tried to get balanced the budget
On Contra!
33
In sentences with SC*-verbs and subject control which are acceptable without FÅ, this verb does not provoke any change in the control relation. (36)
Lars lovte Roar å få slippe inn på sjuer'n
(37)
Roar ble lovt av Lars å få slippe inn på sjuer'n
(36) and (37) express the same meaning as (13) and (14). In (36) and (37), FÅ may be regarded as expressing the speaker's interpretation of the crucial aspect of the meaning of the corresponding sentence without FÅ, (13) and (14). In (30), (31), and (32), (33), FÅ adds to the meaning of the sentence the element of 'permission' of the sentences which possess the property of being passivized without any FÅ (p. 25).
In sentences with FORSØKE, FÅ does not alter the control relation. On the other hand, FÅ adds an element of perfectivity to the meaning of the sentence, viz.: ... get done/manage to ... With FORTSETTE, this possibility is excluded. *Lars fortsetter å få sykle In my view, the uninterpretability of this sentence is due to the incompatibility created by the durative intension of the matrix verb and the perfectivity of FÅ. When FÅ is used with the same intension as MAY in English, however, the sentence is grammatical, even if the main infinitive is the bearer of a non-perfective intension. Cf. Vi kan ikke la Lars fortsette å få drive på slik lenger We cannot let Lars continue to may go on in this way any longer The strictly modal intension of FÅ in this sentence has a syntactic corollary; the order of FORTSETTE and FÅ may be changed, and the resultant sentence is more or less synonymous to the one above, cf. Vi kan ikke la Lars få fortsette å drive på slik lenger We cannot let Lars may continue to go on in this way any longer
34
Jan Engh
On the other hand, FÅ is capable of creating subject control in sentences with matrix verbs that ordinarily only appear with object control, e.g. BE 'ask'. Cf. (38) as distinct from (39).
(38)
Lars bad Roar om å kjøpe en brus Lars asked Roar PRORoar to buy a lemonade
(39)
Lars bad Roar om å få kjøpe en brus Lars asked Roar PROLars to may buy a lemonade
In sentences with matrix predicates of this kind, denoting a purely normative (or negative) content, e.g. TILLATE 'permit', FÅ does not cause any alteration with regard to the control relation either. Such sentences become less acceptable with than without FÅ, however, and their passive counterparts are unacceptable for other reasons than those resulting from control structure. (40)
(*) Lars tillater Roar å få spille langeleik Lars permits Roar PRORoar to may play the dulcimer
(41)
*Roar blir tillatt av Lars å få spille langeleik
When the matrix predicate has a normative content of the 'necessity' kind, e.g. PÅBY 'order', FÅ as an infinite auxiliary will give ungrammatical sentences in the passive and in the active as well. (42)
*Lars påbød Roar å få lese sakspapirene Lars ordered Roar to may read the documents
(43)
*Roar ble påbudt å få lese sakspapirene
On Contra/
35
As a general ruk however, FÅ is endowed with the property of converting active sentences with subject control into sentences with object control, and, of course, sentences of the latter kind are passivizable. Conversely, FÅ is also capable of changing certain sentences in the active with object control into sentences characterized by subject control. Sentences of the latter kind cannot be passivized either. This becomes perfectly clear in the case of ANBEFALE 'recommend' as matrix predicate, cf. (44). Sentences with BE seem a little more acceptable to native speakers, cf. (45). (44)
Roar ble anbefalt av Lars å få kjøpe en brus Roar was recommended by Lars to rna y buy a lemonade
(45)
(*)Roar ble bedt av Lars om å få kjøpe en brus Roar was asked by Lars to may buy a lemonade
The reason for this rnight be the resemblance between (45) and the fully acceptable sentence (46). (46)
Roar ble spurt av Lars om å få kjøpe en brus Roar was asked by Lars to rnay buy a lemonade
(46) corresponds to the active sentence (47). (47)
Lars spurte Roar om å få kjøpe en brus Lars asked Roar to rnay buy a lemonade
But in (47), we find subject control, and in (46), the prepositional adverb av Lars is the controller. One observation which seems to support this interpretation, is that a sentence corresponding to (46), but which lacks the prepositional adverb av Kåre, is ungrammatical, cf. (48).
Jan Engh
36
(48)
*Roar ble spurt om å få kjøpe en brus Roar was asked to may buy a lemonade
The same situation obtains when FÅ is a full verb, appearing as the sole infinitive, e.g (49) and (50).
(49)
Lars spurte Roar om å få en brus Lars asked Roar to get a lemonade
(50)
Roar ble spurt av Lars om å få en brus Roar was asked by Lars to get a lemonade
This is sufficient reason for us to establish that there is no "Visser's law" in Norwegian. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to mention that Visser's hypothesis has a wider domain than the only type of sentences that has been discussed above. Cf. (51), which corresponds to the English sentence (52). (51)
Lars slår meg som tvers igjennom udugelig Lars strikes me as thoroughly incompetent
(52)
John strikes me as pompous
Neither of them may be passivized, as distinct from (53), cf. (54). (53)
Vi ser på Lars som tvers igjennom udugelig We regard Lars as thoroughly incompetent
(54)
Lars blir sett på av oss som tvers igjennom udugelig Lars is regarded by us as thoroughly incompetent
On Contra/
37
This proves that Visser's hypothesis reflects an important regularity, which is latent in the sentence structure of Norwegian, but which does not hold without exception.12
12 There are no grammatical sentences without FÅ corresponding to (46) and (47). Obviously, FÅ is necessary as a consequence of the need to express the modality of the clause, and parallel sentences with object control are grammatical only if they contain finite clauses, not infinitival clauses.
Lars spurte Roar om han kunne/ville kjøpe en brus Lars asked Roa if heRoar could/would buy a lemonade (In this sentence, KUNNE has a dynamic reading.) A parallel sentence in the passive with subject control is the following: Roar ble spurt av Lars om han kunne/ville kjøpe en brus Roar was asked by Lars if he Roar could/ would buy a lemonade Sentences with finite clauses can also have subject control in the active, and a prepositional adverb as a controller in the passive, cf. Lars spurte Roar om han fikk kjøpe en brus Lars asked Roar if heLars might buy a lemonade Roar ble spurt av Lars om han fikk kjøpe en brus Roar was asked by Lars if heLars might buy a lemonade Here, I use the term control in a wider sense than the one accepted within EST; control is not bound to any specific linguistic model or theory, and must also be open to interpretations like the one above. Note that the following sentence is slightly unacceptable: *Roar ble spurt om å få kjøpe en brus Roar was asked if to may buy a lemonade The reason for this is probably the lack of controller represented in the sentence. In all other acceptable sentences in the passive, the phrase expressing the agent/ experiencer, may be omitted.
38
fan Engh
order of constituents of the comp.
con tro! active passive gener- in tr. FÅ FÅ FÅ FÅ intr. generally perf. aux. aux. perf. ally
FORTSETTE
inf
(NP)
FORSØKE
inf
(NP)
s s
LOVE
(NP) inf (NP)
s s s s
TILBY
(NP) inf (NP)
SlO
S/0
o o
o
o o
o o
GARANTERE (NP) inf (NP)
ANBEFALE
(NP) inf (NP)
BE
(NP) inf (NP)
TILLATE
(NP) inf (NP)
PÅBY
(NP) inf (NP)
SPØRRE
(NP) OM inf (NP)
SlO SlO
o
s s o o o o o
s o o o s s
s s s
s s s s s
o o s
s
s s s s s
s s s s
PA PA
Figure 2. Some properties of sentences in vacuo containing a sample of matrix verbs in Norwegian O represents object contra!, S subject control, and P A means that a prepositional adverb is the controller 5. THE NPS OF THE SENTENCE AND THE CONTROL RELATION
So far, the inquiry has been concentrated on the connexion between control and the intension of the infinitival complement. In thls section, the relationship between control and the NPs in the sentence will be discussed. For the sake of descriptive economy, only central aspects of subject-NPs and (direct or indirect) object-NPs, will be analysed. The problem of object-NPs has already been mentioned in passing (p. 26). In describing the control relation in sentences with SC*-verbs and transitive infinitives, a fundamental abstraction was made, however, and the analysis needs some modification. (19) and (21) represent what one may call the unmarked case with respect to one relevant property of their object-NPs: Both LOVE and GARANTERE
On Control
39
usually occur with subject control, and the object-NPs in question do not have intensions which make them refer to individuals particularly disposed to perform the action denoted by the infinitive. In consequence, sentences like (19) must be interpreted with subject control. (19)
Lars lovte Roar å kjøpe en brus Lars promised Roar PROLars to buy a lemonade
Now, let us turn to the marked case, viz. sentences with an objectNP whose referent- from our knowledge of the world - must be predisposed to be the actor of the infinitival action, e.g. eiendomsmekleren 'the estate agent' in a sentence with the infinitive SELGE 'sell'. Sentences of this kind, containing LOVE or GARANTERE, are most likely to be construed with object control, but subject control is not exduded. On the other hand, TILBY-sentences must be interpreted with object contro!, subject control being marginal. (55)
Lars lovte/ garanterte eiendomsmekleren å selge huset Lars promised/ guaranteed the estate agent PROthe estate agent to seil the house Lars promised/ guaranteed the estate agent PROLars to sell the house
(56)
Lars tilbød eiendomsmekleren å selge huset Lars offered the estate agent PROthe estate agent to sell the house (*)Lars offered the estate agent PROLars to seil the house
Therefore, the referential properties of the object-NP, i.e. its intension and its possible extension, also have consequences for the control structure.
40
Jan Engh
This also holds for the subject-NP of the sentence.13 Cf. (57) and (53).
(57)
Landbruksministeren foreslår å dyrke mer neper The Minister of Agriculture proposes to grow more swedes
(53)
Bøndene på Romerike foreslår å dyrke mer neper The farmers of Romerike propose to grow more swedes
In (58), an interpretation implying subject control is plausible. The farmers in question are probably proposing to grow more swedes themselves. But it is reasonable to interpret the subject-NP of (57), landbruksministeren 'the minister of agriculture', as proposing that another person should grow more swedes. Consequently, under the most natura! interpretation of (57), the complement, dyrke mer neper 'grow more swedes' is in fact uncontrolled.14 6. PERFECT P ARTICIPLE AS A VERBAL COMPLEMENT
The tendency towards object control, not subject control, and thus the possibility of passivization of sentences with SC*-verbs and intransitive infinitival complements may be matched with another property of the verbs in the SC*-group: They all belong to the more extensive group of verbs which may occur in the passive with a perfect participle as a complement, i.e. in sentences parallel to the ungrammatical sentences with infinitival complementation. (59)
13 This
Lars lover statstjenestemennene å skaffe nytt arbeid Lars promises the civil servants to provide new jobs
phenomenon is given a brief notice in Hanssen 1972:172. This does not mean that the uncontrolled PRO is arbitrary in reference; see Bresnan 1982 and Engh 1982a. See Engh 1982b for further discussion and observations concerning the control profiles of possible matrix verbs. 14
On Contra/
41
*Stats~enestemennene
(60)
loves av Lars å skaffe nytt arbeid The civil servants are promised by Lars to provide new jobs
(61)
Stats*nestemennene loves skaffet nytt arbeid av Larsls The civil servants are promised to be provided new jobs by Lars
In both sentences (59) and (61), we find subject control. Just like (13), sentence (61) contains an intransitive VP. (62)
slippe inn på sjuer'n
(63)
skaffet
stats~enestemennene
nytt arbeid
In fact, the similarity between the intransitive infinitives in sen-
tences that may be passivized, and the complement perfect participle in passive sentences is greater still: Representing the predicate of the proposition underlying the clause, the perfect participle is situated in an intensional context. The perfect partidple form is the consequence of an interpretation of this; perfect participle simply indicates the perfective content, which is compatible with the position within an intensional context (cf. Engh 1977). There are also several other connexions between certain sentences with infinitival verbal complements and acceptable sentences in the passive containing a perfect participle as verbal complement.
15 This phrase type is not a Norwegian pecularity. In fact, it may be found in most
Northern and western European languages, regardless of genetic relationship; in the uralic language of Sam i (Lapp) as well as in English: ... the sign '
= ' ... may always be imagined eliminated ...
Methods of Logic London 1962:239.)
Cf. Engh 1977 and Engh 1982c.
(W.V. Quine:
42
Jan Engh
Firstly, the relevant meaning denoted by FÅ as an auxiliary, 'may' in the sense of 'permission', may be rewritten as 'be allowed to'. This is not self-evident, however, cf. von Wright 1963: 85ff, but it is an acceptable interpretation, reflecting the generally accepted popular view on permission. Thus, the dause might be understood as the expression of a proposition containing a sort of lexicalized passive. If we accept that, a passive sentence containing FÅ, which meets the necessary requirements, will resemble a sentence with a perfect participle instead of the infinitival complement. This similarity becomes dearer still, when we take a look at sentences with FÅ as a full verb. (64)
Lars lovte statstjenestemennene å få nytt arbeid Lars promised the civil servants to get new jobs
(65)
Statstjenestemennene ble lovt av Lars å få nytt arbeid The civil servants were promised by Lars to get new jobs
(66)
Lars lovte Roar å få en brus Lars promised Roar PRORoar to get a lemonade
(67)
Roar ble lovt av Lars å få en brus Roar was promised by Lars to have a lemonade
Secondly, as mentioned above, the perfect participle complement in sentences with a verb in the passive might be interpreted in two not mutually exdusive ways; as an expression of passive voice and as a mark of perfectivity. Perfectivity, however, might in turn be understood as the property of not having any extension in time. Consequently, change is a predominant aspect of perfectivity. FÅ gives to the clause a similar meaning of change. The action of FÅ-ing is characterized by a state without something before and by a state with afterwards. It does not take time to FÅ, just like toGET in English. FÅ as an auxiliary is endowed with the same semantic property. What is not permitted in one
On Control
43
moment, may be permitted in the next. Nor does it require any space of time to allowe somebody to do something. The semantic factor of change is also a part of the set of semantic properties characterizing sentences with GARANTERE, LOVE, and TILBY as matrix verbs without FÅ in the passive, as far as isolated sentences are concemed. Their infinitival complements are either used intransitively, or simply, they are intransitive, and at the same time, they have a perfective content. Furthermore, sentences like these and sentences with FÅ have another trait in common; their complement denotes an action which is permitted.
7. ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NORWEGIAN AND ENGLISH
Let us retum to Visser for a while once more. Visser's generalization holds for English in the cases where it apparently does not hold for Norwegian. In a certain sense, the English sentence (68) corresponds to (13) in Norwegian. (68)
Frank promised Mary toget in ...
(13)
Lars lovte Roar å slippe inn på sjuer'n
But (68) has subject control, not object control as its Norwegian counterpart does, and it has no acceptable passive transform, cf. (69). (69
*Mary was promised by Frank to get in ...
This might lead us to thlnk that it is of no importance for the control relation of English sentences what general semantic properties, such as aktionsart, characterize the infinitive, as long as it is not endowed with the same specific semantic characteristics as the polysemous verb FÅ in Norwegian.
fan Engh
44
(70) has object control, as has (24), and like its Norwegian parallel, it has an acceptable passive transform, (71). (70)
Frank promised Mary to get a lemonade
(71)
Mary was promised by Frank toget a lemonade
BE ALLOWED TO is probably the idiomatically corred rendering in English of FÅ as an auxiliary. Although there are same doubts as to the acceptability of the adive sentence, the situation seems to be the same as in the case of (70) and (71) above. One of my informants did not accept (72), but all of them agreed on the acceptability of (73). (72)
(*)Frank promised Mary to be allowed to leave early
(73)
Mary was promised by Frank to be allowed to leave early
So, BE ALLOWED TO plays the same role in English as do FÅ as an auxiliary in Norwegian. If PROMISE is the matrix predicate, BE ALLOWED TO converts the contral relation into object contral, and this makes a passive transform of the sentence possible (cf. p. 23). As in Norwegian, this has no significance for the validity of Visser's hypothesis, however. BE ALLOWED TO may also be used to alter sentences with object control in order to produce subject control if the matrix verb is of the appropriate kind. (74)
John asked the teacher to leave early
(75)
John asked (begged, pleaded with, ... ) the teacher to be allowed to leave early16
With persuadeas the main verb, reversal of contra/ ... seems much more difficult.
16 (74) and (75) are taken from Chomsky 1981:76. Chomsky comments:
On Contra/
45
And, as one would expect, these sentences have no corresponding sentences in the passive, cf. the case of parallel subject control sentences without BE ALLOWED TO. (76)
*The teacher was asked by John to be allowed to leave early
This is also the case in Norwegian if the verb generally takes object control, except in those cases where the semantic content is approximately the same as in ASK in English, even though they are not its exa et counterpart, e.g. BE. When it comes to ASK, English differs from what one might reasonably expect on the basis of the Norwegian data. As shown on p. 33, a sentence with SPØRRE and FÅ may appear in the passive. Apart from the domain of Visser's regularity, English seems to differ from Norwegian insofar as the importance of the effect exerted by the intension of the infinitival complement on the control relation is concerned. In Norwegian, there is a certain affinity between intransitive and perfective infinitival complements and object control in sentences with SC*-verbs as matrix predicates. English admits no such affinity in connexion with corresponding matrix verbs.
8. CONCLUSION. CONSEQUENCES FOR THE THEORY OF CONTROL
In Norwegian, some verbs, e.g. FORSØKE 'try' and FORTSETTE
'continue', are equivocal as to the control relation they produce in the sentence in which they may :function as the matrix predicate. This is quite natural, since neither of them take an NP as an indirect object. Both FORSØKE and FORTSETTE require that the subject and the implied agent/ experiencer haveidentical reference. Most verbs which take an indirect object and an infinitival complement, e.g. ANBEFALE 'recommend', and BE 'ask' appear in sen(Ibid.)
46
fan Engh
tences with an unstable, but easily predictable control relation. As long as FÅ is not present in the surface structure as an auxiliary, the sentence exhibits object control. If the sentence contains an auxiliary FÅ, however, it may only be interpreted with subject control. A third group of verbs is the one referred to above as the S C*group, whlch counts as its members GARANTERE, LOVE, and TILBY. The sentences in which they occur, manifest subject or object control. Sentences with GARANTERE or LOVE as matrix verbs have object control H the sentence contains an auxiliary FÅ, or at least under certain circumstances, when the infinitival complement is of an intransitive verb (or a verb which is used intransitively) with a perfective intension. TILBY-sentences exhibit object control with transitive infinitiv al complements of a particular kind too. Intrinsic syntactic properties of verbs are not the sole factor determining the control relation of a given sentence. It is evident that the infinitival complement is also important. The reason is simply that the meaning of all the central parts of the sentence, including the intension of the infinitive as well as l:he extension of the subject and of the object, is of direct significance. But there is also an indirect connexion between control and meaning. As demonstrated above, there are groups of verbs that react in the same manner when confronted with certain differences in l:he intension of the infinitival complement, and their reactions differ, depending on the group to which they belong. Some of the groups consist of verbs that share central syntactic properties, e.g. the order of the constituents of the sentence, functional characteristics of the complement, or different properties as regards the possible transformation of the infinitival complement into complements of other sorts (such as a finite dause or an ordinary NP). But similarity in meaning may often be a more salient feature of the members of such a group of verbs. The SC*-verbs, for instance, have certain syntactic properties in common, but other verbs, which do not belong to the SC*-group, like HINDRE 'prevent' or TILLATE 'permit', share the same properties (cf. Engh 1982b). Thus, the
On Control
47
relevant syntactic properties may represent a necessary, but surely not a sufficient condition for membership in the group. What really constitutes the group of SC*-verbs, is a common set of semantic properties in a narrow sense, (77). (77)
'The person to which the subject refer has got something that the referent of the object needs, or can act in a way which is desirable to him'
An additional characteristic is the fact that SC*-verbs are all used to
express roughly the same type of speech act. Although it has obvious implications on a syntactical level, control is a semantic phenomenon. And the manifest control relations of a sentence are a product of the latent control possibilities of the matrix verb and of other semantic factors of the sentence. Perhaps this is a little easier to perceive on the basis of the Norwegian data. After all, the question of meaning has an indirect bearing on syntactic conditions in Norwegian, since there is a comparatively clear connexion between control, aktionsart, transitivity, and voice.17
REFERENCES
Bach, Ernmon W. 1980. "In Defence of Passive". Linguistics and Philosophy 3.297-342 Bresnan, Joan. 1978. "A Realistic Transformational Grammar". In M. Halle, J. Bresnan, and G. Miller eds. Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality. Cambridge:The MIT Press 17 Despite several hints and good intentions, this is a neglected aspect of the theory of control in EST. In lexical-functional grammar, on the other hand, the semantic nature of control is of central interest, cf. Bresnan 1982. The present article is written roughly within the framework of EST, but its content may be considered largely as complementary to and supporting the criticism levelled by Joan Bresnan against the theory of control in EST. When it comes to the details of my discussion, however, the analysis would certainly have been different, perhaps more adequate and shorter too, if it were based on LFG.
48
Jan Engh
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. "Control and Complementation". To appear in
Linguistic Inquiry Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge:The MIT Press Chomsky, Noam. 1980. "On Binding". Linguistic Inquiry 11.1-46 Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht:Foris Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik. 1977. "Filters and Control". Linguistic Inquiry 8.425-504 Engh, Jan. 1977. "Enkelte problem vil bli forsøkt oppstilt". In T. Fretheim ed. Sentrale problemer i norsk syntaks. Oslo:Universitetsforlaget Engh, Jan. 1982a. "Uncontrolled PROs without Arbitrary Reference". Forthcoming Engh, Jan. 1982b. "Infinitiv som utfylling til verb i norsk". Forthcoming Engh, Jan. 1982c. Verb i passiv fulgt av perfektum partisipp. Bruk og historie. Forthcoming Falk, Hjalmar and Alf Torp. 1900. Dansk-norskens syntax. Kristiania: Aschehoug Hanssen, Eskil. 1972. "Den underordnete setning: Om forholdet mellom at-setning og infinitivfrase i norsk". Norsk tidsskrift for sprogvidenskap. 26:165-77 Visser, F. T. 1973. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Vol. 3, part 2. Leiden:Brill von Wright, Georg H. 1963. Norm and Action. London: Routledge and KeganPaul Wasow, Thomas. 1977. "Transformations and the lexicon". In P.W. Cullicover, T. Wasow, and A Akmajian eds. Formal Syntax. New York:Academic Press
Uncontrolled PROs without Arbitrary Reference* JANENGH In Control and Complementation, Joan Bresnan demonstrates the
significance of meaning to the control relation of a given sentence, and she levels an attack against the Extended Standard Theory conception of uncontrolled PROs as having arbitrary reference. I think her criticism is well founded in this respect, and that Control and Complementation is an important step in the direction of an adequate theory of control. Bresnan's argumentation is partly based on the analysis of sentences in context, since the uncontrolled PRO may refer to the same (group of) individual(s) as an NP outside the sentence. But however sound her criticism, the recourse to the context might turn out to be a weakness, because it becomes possible to reject her important criticism on more or less formal grounds, as being text grammar, not a sentence grammar. I would like to present some data from Norwegian which indicates that it is not necessary to cross sentence boundaries in order to establish that an uncontrolled PRO need not have arbitrary reference .l In Norwegian, sentences with the causative LA 'let' and verbs of perception, e.g HØRE 'hear' may take an infinitival complement with an (oblique) subject-NP and, when possible, an object-NP, cf. (l) and (2). (l)
Kåre lar Rolf pusse (vinduet) Kåre lets Rolf dean (the window)
* I would like to thank Kirsti Koch Christensen, Even Hovdhaugen, and Kari Anne Rand Schmidt for discussing the idea presented here. All errors and unreasonable opinions are, of course, my own. I Norwegian must be considered as a representative of Scandinavian in this respect, as Danish and Swedish exhibit the same relevant properties as regards complementation.
Jan Engh
50
(2)
Kåre hører Rolf hogge (ved) Kåre hears Rolf chop (wood)
But unlike other verbs taking infinitival complements, these two (and a few others) may also occur with another type of infinitival clause, the first NP in which is the object of the infinitive. There is no subject-NP in clauses of this type. Cf. Falk and Torp 1900, p. 194f. (3)
Kåre lar vinduet pusse Kåre lets the windowobj. dean
(4)
Kåre har hørt navnet nevne Kåre has heard the nameobj. mention
This is a peculiar construction in several respects. It is somewhat archaic, and people often try to express their interpretation of it by changing the infinitive into a perfect participle, making the sentence conform to a more common pattem: (5)
Kåre har hørt navnet nevnt Kåre has heard the name mentioned
Thus, they indicate that the NP in question is the patient of the action. Sentences with HØRE are only fully acceptable with the matrix verb in the perfect. In the case of (1), the choice of tense is free in principle. The relevance of this construction to Bresnan's discussion, is the lack of an overt subject in the clause. The PRO in question is uncontrolled, and hence, following Chomsky (for instance 1997, p. 440), PRO is arbitrary in reference. In a literal sense, this means that a PRO of this kind may refer to everything in the universe of discourse, even to the same individual(s) as
Uncontro/led PROs without Arbitrary Reference
51
the subject of the sentence refers to. However, tlus is not the case. On the contrary, in a sentence like (3), it is implied that the reference of PRO and Kåre is not identical. One might easily imagine that this is a function of the causative intention of (1), since it is pointless to say that one lets oneself perform a certain action. That is not the case, however. Sentence (4) is endowed with the same semantic property, although HØRE is the matrix verb. Somebody else has mentioned the name. This means that there is presupposed a set of persons to whom the PRO may refer; PRO has no specific reference, but it has an extension. In this sentence, the uncontrolled PRO is not arbitrary in reference. And this holds also for the sentence when it occurs explicitly in vacuo, which, in my view, is a strong support for the kind of criticism expressed by Bresnan in her article.
REFERENCES
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. "Control and Complementation". To appear in Linguistic Inquiry Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasillk. 1977. "Filters and Control". Linguistic Inquiry 8.425-504 Falk, Hjalmar and Alf Torp. 1900. Dansk-norskens syntax., Kristiania:Aschehoug
Postludium JAN ENGH 'On Control' and 'Uncontrolled PROs without Arbiary Reference' were written in the early summer of 1982. For various reasons, they were never published. The current versions are identical to the original ones with the following exceptions: A few misspellings have been corrected and a number of purely graphic changes have been made. This is due to the conversion of the manuscripts to machine-readable form and to the subsequent adaptation to the graphic standard of NORskrift. As for the bibliographic references, Bresnan, Joan. 1982. 'Control and Complementation'. To appear in
Linguistic Inquiry was published as Bresnan, Joan. 1982. 'Control and Complementation', Linguistic Inquiry 13/3:343-434 Engh, Jan. 1982b. 'Infinitiv som utfylling til verb i norsk'. Forthcoming was never published. On the other hand, Engh, Jan. 1982c. Verb Forthcoming
passiv fulgt
av
perfektum
was finally published in 1994 (Oslo, Norway: Novus forlag).
partisipp.
Con tro l A Bibliography JAN ENGH AND KRISTIAN EMIL KRISTOFFERSEN The scope of this bibliography is to cover the grammatical literature on the understood subject of infinitives. It is based on various sources: First of alt on special bibliographical research, but also on queries for bibliographical references via LINGUIST LIST in 1993 and 1996, supplemented with searches in printed bibliographies, e.g. Eisenberg, Peter and Bernd Wiese: Bibliographie zur deutschen Grammatik: 1984-1994. Tiibingen, Germany: Narr 1995, accessible machine-readable bibliographical databases: International databases such as Francis, Humanities Index and Modern Languages Association, in addition to "local" databases such as NOTA.l Now, one might ask why a special bibliography for the notion of control is required, given the number of bibliographical resources mentioned above. The reason is two-fold: First of all, 'control' is an important and poorly understood category blurring the traditional limit between semantics and syntax. Secondly, searches for 'control', 'controle', Kontrolle' or the like is not quite a trivial matter from a technical point of view. On the one hand, "control" is a fairly general word, and so are its equivalents in other languages. On the other hand, one has no guarantee that possible delimiting words such as "subject", "object", "verb", "linguistic" or "language" are being used in titles, abstracts, index word fields or any other searchable field for that matter. In order to be on the safe side, then, one cannot refrain from searching for 'control' etc. alone. And even if one tries to limit the search by means of NOT 'birth', 'flow', 'pest', and 'social' etc. one ends up with a large number of references - mostly on subjects different from the one l
The Norwegian database for scientific articles.
54
Jan Engh and Kristian Emil Kristoffersen
intended... In fact, even if one does delimit the search by means of 'syntactic' or 'semantic' a number of irrelevant data is accumulated. E.g.: TI: Visual Word Recognition: Evidence for Strategic Control of Lexical and Nonlexical Routines in Oral Reading AU: Baluch,-Bahman; Besner,-Derek SO: Journal-of-Experimental-Psychology:-Learning,-Memory,and-Cognition, Washington, DC (JExPLMC). 1991 July, 17:4, 644-52 (---) PY: 1991 DE: language-; psycholinguistics-; reading-; role of orthography-; semantic-relations; word-frequency; in wordrecognition; in Persian-language-Modern
So, the raison d'etre of the bibliography is to spare others from looking through an enormous number of similarly irrelevant references in order to find those relatively few focussing on semantic or syntactic control. A comment on the verification problem. Unfortunately, we have not been able to read all the publications listed (which, in turn, is a sign that quite a few of them are rather inaccessible). This means that the selection has been carried out to the best of our judgement - and in some cases to that of our informants. We are not in the position to guarantee that every publication discusses 'control' in exactly the sense we are after. When in doubt, though, we have adopted a liberal view, preferring to include one irrelevant title rather than to omit any title of interest. The titles included in the bibliography refer to specialized literature on the subject. In general, works of a global nature have not been included. Exceptions are titles that can be considered of particular interest for control in the development of linguistic theory, e.g. Chomsky 1965, 1981, Jackendoff 1972, and titles such as Radford 1981 and Brennenstuhl1982. Although the latter is focusing on action logic, it has been included since it contains relevant information on the notion of
Control - A Bibliography
55
control in general. Radford's introductory book also contains a contribution to the description of linguistic 'control'. As far as articles in collections or proceedings papers are concerned, the full reference is given except in those cases where the collection or proceedings is focussing on control. In the latter case, it is entered as a title in its own right. Finally, a few words on the notation. The references are presented in a way which is not technically complete, nor correct from a strict library cataloguing point of view. Still, the information will be enough to give the reader a necessary hint, when looking up the item in the local library catalogue or database. It represents a compromise between the formats found in international/ American and Scandinavian scientific journals.2 As for the details on the content side, we have tried to resolve as many as possible of the initials appearing in our sources. We have not managed to resolve them all, though. More investigation would have caused a delay, and we found it better to renounce a 100% exactness in order to make the bibliography available for the public now ... The target audience is linguistic students and researchers. We hope the bibliography will be useful for those taking a particular interest in 'control'3
The notational conventions are partly based on the recomendations of The Chicago manual of style: for authors, editors, and copywriters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982. 3 The authors will be happy to receive corrections and suggestions for further titles to be included. Even for a restricted subject such as semantic or syntactic contra! it is virtually impossible to avoid lacunas. It is also our intention to carry on with the work. Corrected and augmented versions of the bibliography will appear with irregular intervals - probably on the web. 2
56
Jan Engh and Kristian Emil Kristoffersen
REFERENCES
Abraham, Werner: 1982, 'Zur Kontrollbeziehung im Deutschen'. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik. 21/112-167 Abraham, Werner: 1983, The control relation in German'. In Abraham, Werner (ed.): On the formal syntax of the Westgermania: papers from '3rd Groningen grammar talks', Groningen, January. 1981. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins 217-242 Abraham, Werner: 1983, 'Zur Kontrollbeziehung im Deutschen'. In Jongen, Rene, Sabine De Knop, Peter H. Nelde, and Marie Paule Quix (eds.): Akten des 17. Linguistischen Kolloquiums, Brussel, 1982, I: Sprache, Diskurs und Text. (Linguistische Arbeiten 133) Tiibingen, Germany: Niemeyer 41-59 Aissen, Judith L.: 1984, 'Control and command in Tzotzil purpose Clauses'. In Brugman, Claudia, Monica Maccaulay, Amy Dahlstrom, Michele Emanatian, Birch Moonwoman, and Catherine O'Connor (eds.): Proceedings of the tenth annua[ meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 17-20, 1984. Berkeley. Berkeley, Ca.: Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California 559-571 Al-Haq, Fawwaz Al-Abed: 1992, 'Functional or anaphoric control in Jordanian Arabic?'. Language sciences 14/1-2:1-28 Andrews, Avery D.: 1982, 'The representation of case in Modern Icelandic'. In Bresnan 1982b 427-503 Andrews, Avery D.: 1990, 'Case structures and control in Modem Icelandic'. In Maling and Joan, Annie Zaenen (eds.): Modern Icelandic syntax. (Syntax and semantics 24) San Diego, Ca.: Academic Press 187-234 Bach, Emmon: 1969, 'Linguistic form: transformational theory'. In Meetham, AR. and R. A Hudson (eds.): Encyclopedia of linguistics. information and control 280-284 Bach, Emmon: 1979, 'Control in Montague grammar'. Linguistic inquiry 10/515-31
Contra/ - A Bibliography
57
Bach, Emmon: 1982, 'Purpose clauses and control'. In Jacobson, Pauline and Geoffrey K. Pullam (eds.): The Nature of syntactic representation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel 35-57 Bagchi, Tista: 1993a, 'Control, reflexives, and automodularity in Bangla imperfective participial complements'. In Beals, Katharine, Gina Cooke, David Kathman, Sotaro Kita, Karl-Erik McCullough, and David Testen (eds.): Chicago Linguistic Society 29th regional meeting 1993. The main session Chicago, Il.: CLS 1:17-32 Bagchi, Tista: 1993b, Clausal subordination in Bangla: a cross-modular approach. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago. Chicago Il.: University of Chicago, Joseph Regenstein Library, Department of Photoduplication Baschung, Karen: 1988, 'Controle et relations de paraphrase et d'ambigui:te dans les enchassees verbales'. In Bes, Gabriel G. and Catherine Fuchs (eds.): Lexique et paraphrase. (Lexique 6) Lille, France: Presses universitaires de Lille 83-95 Baschung, Karen: 1991, Grammaires d'unification a traits et contr6le des infinitives en fram;ais. (Langues naturelles et traitement de ['information 2) Clermont-Ferrand, France: Adosa Bearth, T.: 1984, 'Periphrases du passif fran~ais et la notion de controle'. Bulletin de la Section de linguistique de la faculte des let tres de Lausanne 6 l 27-40 Bergner, E. and E. Nylund: 1995, 'Aspect, directionality and control in Japanese'. In Bennett, David C., Theodora Bynon, and B. George Hewitt (eds.): Subject, voice and ergativity. London, UK: School of Oriental and African Studies Boland, Julie E., Michael K. Tanenhaus, and Susan M. Garnsey: 1990, 'Evidence for the immediate use of verb control information in sentence processing'. Journal of memory and language 29 l 4:413-32 Borer, Hagit: 1989, 'Anaphoric AGR'. In Jaeggli, Osvaldo and Kenneth J. Safir (eds.): The null subject parameter. (Studies in natural language and linguistic Theory 15) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer 69-109
58
Jan Engh and Kristian Emil Kristoffersen
Borsley, Robert D.: 1984, 'VP complements: evidence from Welsh'. Journal of linguistics 20/2:277-302 Borsley, Robert D.: 1987, 'A Note on traditional treatments of Welsh'. Journal of linguistics 23/1:185-190 Brame, Michael K.: 1984, 'Ungrammatical notes, VII: explaining anaphora'. Linguistic analysis Branco, Antonio Horta and Paula Guerreiro: 1993, 'Le Traitement lexicologique des structures de contr6le du Portugais (GENLEX)' Publica~oes/Working papers 22. Lisbon, Portugal: Instituto de linguistica te6rica e computacional Brandt, Søren: 1995, Infinitive control in Danish. (Historisk-filosofiske meddelelser 69) Copenhagen: Munksgaard Brennenstuhl, Waltraud: 1982, Control and ability: towards a biocybernetics of language. (Pragmatics and beyond 3/4) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Bresnan, Joan W.: 1982a, 'Control and complementation'. Linguistic inquiry 13/3:343-434. Also in Bresnan 1982b 282-390 Bresnan, Joan W. (ed.): 1982b, The Mental representation of
grammatical relations. (MIT Press series on cognitive theory and mental representation) Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press Brody, Michael: 1982, 'On deletion and on local control'. In Marantz, Alec and Tim Stowell (eds.): Papers in syntax. (MIT Working papers in linguistics 4) 5-14 Broihier, Kevin and Kenneth Wexler: 1992, 'Control structures in child grammar'. [P aper presented at the Boston University conference on language development] Budwig, Nancy: 1989, 'The Linguistic marking of agentivity and control in child language'. Journal of child language 16/2:263-284 Cadiot, Pierre: 1990, 'Contr6le anaphorique et pn§positions'. Langages 97:8-23 Cairns, Helen Smith, Dana McDaniel, Jennifer Ryan Hsu, Michelle Rapp: 1994 'A Longitudinal study of principles of control and pronominal reference in child English' Language 70/2:260-88
Control - A Bibliography
59
Calabrese, Andrea: 1992, 'The Lack of infinitival clauses in Salentino: a synchronic analysis'. ln Laeufer, Christiane and Terrell A Morgan (eds.): Theoretical analyses in Romance linguistics: selected papers from the nineteenth linguistic symposium on Romance languages. (LSRL XIX), Ohio State University, 21-23 Apr. 1989. (Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series 4: Current issues in linguistic theory 74) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins, 267-94 Carter, D.: 1990, 'Control issues in anaphor resolution'. Journal of semantics 7 l 4:435Cattell, Ra y: 1984, Composite predicates in English. (Syntax and semantics 17) Sydney, Australia: Academic Press Chanod, Jean-Pierre, Bettina Harriehausen, and Simonetta Montemagni: 1993, 'A Two-stage algorithm to parse multi-lingual argument structures'. In Jensen, Karen, George Heidorn, and Stephen D. Richardson: Natura! language processing: The PLNLP approach. (The Kluwer international series in engineering and computer science. Natura! language processing and machine translation.) Boston, Mass.: Kluwer 215-226 Chao, W.: 1981, 'PRO-drop languages and nonobligatory control'. In W. Chao and D. Wheeler (eds.): University of Massachusetts occational papers in linguistics 7 Chierchia, Gennaro: 1983, 'Outline of a semantic theory of (obligatory) control'. ln Barlow, Michael, Daniel P. Flickinger, and Michael T. Wescoat (eds.): Proceedings of the West Coast conference on formal linguistics. Stanford, Ca.: Stanford Linguistics Association (Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University) 1931 Chierchia, Gennaro: 1984, 'Anaphoric properties of infinitives and gerunds'. ln Cobler, Mark, Susannah Mackaye, and Michael Westcoat (eds.): Proceedings of the third West Coast conference on formal linguistics. Stanford, Ca.: Stanford Linguistics Association
60
Jan Engh and Kristian Emil Kristoffersen
(Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University) Chierchia, Gennaro: [1984] 1988, Topics in the syntax and semantics of infinitives and gerunds. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. (Outstanding dissertations in linguistics) New York, N.Y.: Garland Chierchia, Gennaro: 1989a, 'Anaphora and attitudes De Se'. In Bartsch, Renate, Johan van Benthem, and P. van Emde Boas (eds.): Semantics and contextual expression. (Groningen-Amsterdam studies in semantics) Dordrecht : Foris Chierchia, Gennaro: 1989b, 'Structured meanings, thematic roles and control'. In Chierchia, Gennaro, Barbara Hall Partee, and Raymond Turner (eds.): Properties, types and meanings, II: semantic issues. (Studies in linguistics and philosophy 38-39) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer 131-166 Chierchia, Gennaro and Pauline Jacobson: 1986, 'Local and long distance control'. In Berman, S., J. Choe, and J. McConough (eds.): Papers from the sixteenth annua[ meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society. Amherst, Mass.: GLSA, University of Massachusetts Choi, Jae Oh: [1992] 1993, Licensing in Korean: multiple case, predication, control, and anaphora, Doctoral dissertation, New York University, New York. Dissertation Abstracts Intemational53/11 Chomsky, Noam: 1965, Aspects of the theory of syntax, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press Chomsky, Noam: 1980a, 'A Note on non-control PRO'. Journal of linguistic research l/ 4:1-11 Chomsky, Noam: 1980b, 'On binding'. Linguistic inquiry 11/1-46 Chomsky, Noam: 1981, Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris Publications Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik: 1977, 'Filters and con trol'. Linguistic inquiry 8 l 425-504
Control - A Bibliography
61
Clark, Robin Lee: [1985] 1986, Boundaries and the treatment of control. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Dissertation Abstracts International 46/12. Also published (1990) in a modified version as Thematic theory in syntax and interpretation. (Croom Heim linguistics series) London, UK: Routledge Clements, J. Clancy: [1990] 1992, 'Semantics of control, tense sequencing and disjoint reference'. In Hirschbiihler, Paul and Konrad Koerner (eds.): Romance languages and modern linguistic theory 45-56. (Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series 4: Current issues in linguistic theory 91) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins 45-56 Comorovski, Ileana: 1986, 'Control and obviation in Romanian'. In Choi, Soonja, Dan Devitt, Wynn Janis, Terry McCoy, and Zhengsheng Zhang (eds.): Proceedings of the second Eastern States conference on linguistics. Columbus, Oh.: Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University 47-56 Comrie, Bernard: 1984, 'Subject and object control: syntax, semantics and pragmatics'. In Brugman, Claudia and Monica Macaulay (eds.): Proceedings of the tenth annua! meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. February 17-20, 1984. Berkeley. Berkeley, Ca.: Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California Comrie, Bernard: 1985, 'Reflections on subject and object control'. Journal of semantics 4/1:47-65 Cormack, Annabel: 1995, 'The semantics of case'. U C L Working papers in linguistics 7/235-276 Culicover, Peter W.: 1988, 'Autonomy, predication, and thematic relations'. In Wilkins 1988 37-60 Culicover, Peter W. and Wendy Wilkins: 1986, 'Control, PRO, and the projection principle'. Language 62/120-153. C u trer, L. Michelle: 1987, 'Theories of obligatory contro l'. University of California at Davis working papers in linguistics 2:6-37
62
fan Engh and Kristian Emil Kristoffersen
Cutrer, L. Michelle: 1993, 'Semantic and syntactic factors in control'. In Van Valin jr., Robert D. (ed.): Advances in role and reference grammar. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Davies, William 0.: 1988, 'The case against functional control'. Lingua 76/1-20 Davis, Lori: 1982, 'Argument-binding and control'. Journal of linguistic research Davison, Alice: 1985, 'Case and control in Hindi-Urdu'. Studies in the linguistic sciences Demonte, Violeta: 1988, 'El 'articulo en lugar del posesivo' y el control de. los sintagmas nominales'. Nueva revista de filologia hispanica 36/1:89-108 Dooley, Robert A.: 1988, 'Pragmatics and grammar: motivation and control'. Work papers of the summer institute of linguistics, University of North Dakota session 32/59-86 Dowty, David R.: 1985, 'On recent analyses of the semantics of contro l'. Linguistics and philosophy 8/3:291-331 Eisenberg, Peter: [1985] 1986, 'Zmn Kontrollproblem im Deutschen: Infinitivkomplemente bei Wahrnehmungsverben'. In Burkhardt, Armin and Karl-Hermann Korner (eds.): Pragmantax: Akten des 20. Linguistischen Kolloquiums Braunschweig 1985. (Linguistische Arbeiten 171) Tiibingen, Germany: Niemeyer 37-46 Engh, Jan: [1982]1996a, 'On control'. NORskrift 89:19-48 Engh, Jan: [1982] 1996b, 'Uncontrolled PROs without arbitrary reference'. NORskrift 89:49-51 Ernst, Thomas: 1987, 'Control and predication in mandarin Chinese'. In Marshall, Fred, Ann M. Miller, Zheng Sheng Zhang (eds.): Proceedings of the third Eastern States conference on linguistics. Columbus, Oh.: Ohio State University 139-150 Estival, Dominique: 1994, [Review of Baschung 1991.] Computational linguistics 20 l 4:661-64 Falk, Yehuda N.: 1983, 'Subjects and long-distance dependencies'. Linguistic analysis 12/3:245-270
Contra/ - A Bibliography
63
Panego, Teresa: 1996, 'The development of gerunds as objects of subject-control verbs in English (1400-1760)'. Diachronica 13/1:29-62 Parkas, Donka P.: 1985, 'Obligatory controlled subjects in Romanian'. Chicago Linguistics Society. Papers from the general sess ion at the 21th regional meeting 21/1:90-100 Parkas, Donka F.: 1988, 'On obligatory control'. Linguistics and philosophy 11/1:27-58 Farrell, Patrick: 1993 'The interplay of syntax and semantics in complement control'. In Lahiri, Utpal and Adam Wyner (eds.): Proceedings from semantics and linguistic theory III. Ithaca, N.Y.: Comell University 57-76 Parrell, Patrick: 1994, 'Causative binding and the minimal distance principle'. In Aranovich, Raul, William Byrne, Susanna Preuss, and Martha Senturia (eds.): Proceedings of the thirteenth West Coast conference on formal linguistics. Stanford, Ca.: Stanford Linguistics Association (Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University) 237-252 Parrell, Patrick: [1994] 1995a, 'Backward control in Brazilian Portuguese'. In Puller, Janet M., Ho Han, and David Parkinson (eds.): ESCOL '94 (Proceedings of the eleventh Eastern States conference on linguistics) 116-127 Parrell, Patrick: 1995b, 'Lexical binding'. Linguistics 33/939-980 Fehri, Abdelkader Fassi: (1981), 'Theorie lexicale-fonctionnelle: contr6le et accord en arabe moderne'. Arabica: revue d'etudes arabes, 28/299332 Piengo, Robert and Hea-sun Kim: 1980, 'Binding and control in Korean: structural restrictions on anaphora in a non-configurational language'. Journal of linguistic research 1980, l l 4:59-73 Fillmore, Charles J.: 1986, 'Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora'. In Nikiforidou, Vassiliki, Mary VanClay, Mary Niepokuj, and Deborah Peder (eds.): Proceedings of the twelfth annua! meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 15-17, 1986. Berkele. Berkeley, Ca.: Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California 95-107
64
Jan Engh and Kristian Emil Kristoffersen
Foley, William A and Robert D. Van Valin Jr.: 1984, Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Franks, Steven and Norbert Hornstein: 1992: 'Secondary predication in Russian and proper government of PRO'. In Larson, Iatridou, Lahiri, and Higginbotham 19921-50 French, Robert: Control and thematic government. Doctoral dissertation, New York University. Dissertation Abstracts International46/8 Fukushima, Kazuhiko: 1990, 'VP-Embedding control structures in Japanese'. In Dziwirek, Katarzyna, Patrick Farrell, and Errapel Mejias-Bikandi (eds.): Grammatical relations: a cross-theoretical perspective. Stanford, Ca.: Center for the Study of Language and Information Faarlund, Jan-Terje: 1985, 'Imperative and control: first person imperatives in Norwegian'. Nordic journal of linguistics 8/2:149-160 Goodluck, Helen and Dawn Behne: 1988, 'Thematic roles, external argument and control of adjuncts: a case of late-acquired knowledge'. Cahiers linguistiques d'Ottawa 16/103-114 Goodluck, Helen and Dawn Behne: 1992, 'Development in control and extraction'. In Weissenborn, Jiirgen, Helen Goodluck, and Tom Roeper (eds.): Theoretical issues in language acquisition. Hillsdale N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum 153-73 Goodluck, Helen and Arhonto Terz: 1996, 'Controlled PRO and the acquisition of Greek'. In Stringfellow, Andy, Dalia Cahana-Amitay, Elizabeth Hughes, and Andrea Zukowski (eds.): Boston University conference on language development 20. Boston, Mass.: Boston University 261-71 Green, Georgia M.: 1992, 'Purpose infinitives and their relatives'. In Brentari, Diane, Gary N. Larson, and Lynn A McLeod (eds.): The joy of grammar: a festschrift in honor of James D. McCawley. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins 95-127 Grimshaw, Jane: 1990, Argument structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
Contra/ - A Bibliography
65
Haegeman, Liliane: 1981, 'Modal shall and speaker's control'. Journal of English linguistics 15 l 4-9 Haider, Hubert: 1991, 'PRO-BLEME?'. In Fanselow, Gisbert and Sascha W. Felix (eds.): Struktur und merkmale syntaktischer kategorien. (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 39) Ttibingen, Germany: Narr 121-143 Hale, K.: 1992, 'Subject obviation, switch reference, and control'. In Larson, Iatridou, Lahiri, and Higginbotham 1992 51-78 Hanssen, Eskil A: 1972, "Den underordnete setning: om forholdet mellom at-setning og infinitivfrase i norsk". Norsk tidsskrift for sprogvidenslcap. 26:165-77 Hasegawa, Nobuko: 1981, 'The VP complement and 'control' phenomena: beyond trace theory'. Linguistic analysis 7/1:85-120 Hashemipour, Margaret Marie: [1989] 1990, Pronominalization and control in Modern Persian (Persian syntax). Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego. Dissertation Abstracts International50/9 Higginbotham, James: 1989, 'Reference and control'. Rivista di linguistica 1/2:301-326 Higginbotham, James: 1992, 'Reference and control'. In Larson, Iatridou, Lahiri, and Higginbotham 1992 79-108 Hinrichs, Erhard and Tsuneko Nakazawa: 1994 'Lexical and syntactic properties of control constructions in German'. Unpublished manuscript, Ti.ibingen, Germany and Tokyo, Japan Hoeing, Robert G.: 1989, [Review of Shannon 1987] Language 65/3:841 Hoeing, Robert G.: [1985] 1991, 'Out of control: control theory and its implications for empty categories, expletives, and missing subjects in German'. In Antonsen, Eimer H. and Hans Henrich Hock (eds.):
Stæfcræft: studies in Germanic linguistics: select papers from second symposium on Germanic linguistics, University of Chicago, 24 April 1985, and University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 3-4 October 1986. (Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic
66
Jan Engh and Kristian Emil Kristoffersen
science. Series 4: Current issues in linguistic theory 79) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Hoeing, Robert G.: 1994, Empty, expletive, and mzssmg subjects in German. (Berkeley insights in linguistics and semiotics 11) New York, N.Y.: P. Lang Horn, G. M.: 1979, 'Functional structure and control'. In Engdahl, Elisabet and M. J. Stein (eds.): To E. Bach. Papers presented to Emmon Bach by his students. (University of Massachusetts occational papers in linguistics. Special editions.) Amherst, Mass.: GLSA, University of Massachusetts Hsu, Jennifer Ryan: 1981, 'The development of structural principles related to complement subject interpretation'. Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York Hsu, Jennifer Ryan, Helen Smith Cairns, and Robert Fiengo: 1985, 'The development of grammars underlying children's interpretation of complex sentences'. Cognition 20/25-48 Hsu, Jennifer Ryan, Helen Smith Cairns, Sarita Eisenberg, and Gloria Schlisselberg: 1989, 'Control and coreference in early child language'. Journal of child language 16/3:599-622 Hsu, Jennifer Ryan and Helen Smith Cairns: 1990, 'Interpreting PRO: from strategy to structure'. In Bendix, Edward H. (ed.): The Uses of linguistics. (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 583) New York, N. Y.: New York Academy of Sciences 109-128 Huang, Cheng-Te James: 1984, 'On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns'. Linguistic inquiry 15/531-574 Huang, Cheng-Te James: 1989, 'Pro drop in Chinese: a generalized control approach'. In Jaeggli, Osvaldo and Kenneth J. Safir (eds.): The null subject parameter. (Studies in natural language and linguistic theory 15) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel185-214 Huang, Cheng-Te James: 1992, 'Complex predicates in control'. In Larson, Iatridou, Lahiri, and Higginbotham 1992 109-147 Huang, Yan: 199la, 'A Neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora'. Journal of linguistics 27/301-335
Contra/ - A Bibliography
67
Huang, Yan: 1991b, 'A Pragmatic analysis of control :in Chinese'. In Verschueren, Jef (ed.): Levels of linguistic adaptation: selected papers
from the international pragmatics conference, Antwerp, August 1722, 1987. II (Pragmatics and beyond: new series 6, 2) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins 113-45 Huang, Yan: 1991c, [Review of] H. Lasnik, Essays on anaphora. Journal of linguistics 271228-233 Huang, Yan: 1992a, 'Aga:inst Chomsky's typology of empty categories'. Journal of pragmatics 17ll-29 Huang, Yan: 1992b, 'Hanyu de kongfanchou [Empty categories in Chinese]'. Zhongguo yuwen 51384-393 Huang, Yan: 1993, [Review of J. H:intikka and G. Sandu: Methodology of linguistics] Journal of pragmatics 19 l 487-493 Huang, Yan: 1994a, The Syntax and pragmatics of anaphora: a study with special reference to Chinese. (Cambridge studies in linguistics 70). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Huang, Yan: 1994b, [Review of J. Koster andE. Reuland: Long-distance anaphora.] Journal of pragmatics 221667-684. Huang, Yan: 1995, 'On null subjects and null objects in generative grammar'. Linguistics 33 l l 081-1123 Huang, Yan: Forthcoming. Anaphora: a cross-linguistic study. (Oxford studies in typology and linguistic theory). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press Hudson, R. A.: 1969, 'Linguistic form: paradigmatic'. In Meetham, AR. and R. A Hudson (eds.): Encyclopedia of linguistics. Information and control. Oxford, UK: Pergamon 273-276 Hudson, R. A.: 1969, 'Linguistic form: syntagmatic'. In Meetham, AR. and R. A Hudson (eds.): Encyclopedia of linguistics. Information and control. Oxford, UK: Pergamon 276-278 Hurtado, Alfredo: 1981, 'Le Contr6le par les clitiques'. Revue quebecoise de linguistique 1111:9-67 Hurtado, Alfredo: 1989, 'El control mediante cliticos'. Revista Argentina de linguistica 5 l l-2:13-56
68
Jan Engh and Kristian Emil Kristoffersen
Hust, Joel and Michael Brame: 1976, 'Jackendoff on interpretive semantics'. Linguistic analysis 2/243-277 Iwakura, Kunihiro: 1985, 'The binding theory and PRO'. Linguistic analysis 15 Il :29-55 Jackendoff, Ray: 1972, Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press Jackendoff, Ray: 1987, 'The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory'. Linguistic inquiry 18/369-411 Jackendoff, Ray: 1990, Semantic structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press Jacobson, Pauline: 1992a, 'Raising without movement'. In Larson, Iatridou, Lahiri, and Higginbotham 1992 149-194 Jacobson, Pauline: 1992b, 'The Lexical entailment theory of control and the tough-construction'. In Sag, Ivan A and Anna Szabolcsi (eds.): Lexical matters. (CSLI lecture notes 24) Stanford, Ca.: Center for Study of Language and Information 269-300 Jayaseelan, K.-A.: 1984, 'Control in some sentential adjuncts of Malayalam'. In Brugman, Claudia, Monica Maccaulay, Amy Dahlstrom, Michele Emanahan, Birch Moonwoman, and Catherine O'Connor (eds.): Proceedings of the tenth annua! meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 17-20, 1984. Berkeley. Berkeley, Ca.: Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California 623-633 Jensen, Margaret Teller Stong: [1980] 1981, Phrasal compounds in French and the theory of contra!. Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder. Dissertation Abstracts International41/8 Jones, Charles: 1988, 'Thematic relations in control'. In Wilkins1988 7589 Joseph, Brian: 1992, 'Diachronic perspectives on control'. In Larson, Iatridou, Lahiri, and Higginbotham 1992 195-234 Jung, Hee Won: 1990 'Hankwuke nayphomwun thongceykwumwunuy yuhyeng: HPSG-lul cwungsimulo [Types of embedded control constructions in Korean: An HPSG Approach]'. Master's thesis, Seoul National University. Seoul, Korea
Contra/ - A Bibliography
69
Kathman, David: [1992] 1996, 'Control in autolexical syntax'. In Schiller, Eric, Elisa Steinberg, and Barbara Need (eds.): Autolexical theory: ideas and methods (Trends in linguistics, studies and monographs 85) Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gmyter 103-129 Kawasaki, Noriko: 1993, Control and arbitrary interpretation in English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass. Dissertation Abstracts International54/2 Kayne, Richard S.: 1981, 'Binding, quantifiers, clitics and control'. In Heny, Frank (ed.): Binding and filtering. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press 191-211 Kim, Jong-Hyeon: 1988, Kwukeuy nayphomwun thongceywa mwuceyhan uyconkwankye [Control and unbounded dependency in Korean]. Master's thesis, Seoul National University. Seoul, Korea Kim, Kyoung-Hak: 1990, 'Lexical functional grammar and control in Korean'. Language Research Kim, Young-Sun: 1991, 'On some differences between control and predication'. Language research 27/3:463-79 Kiss, Tibor: 1995, Infinite Komplementation. Neue Studien zum deutschen Verbum infinitum. (Linguistische Arbeiten 333) Tiibingen, Germany: Niemeyer Klein, Eberhard: 1981, 'Aspekte der control-Problematik in Satzen mit subjektlosen gerundialen Komplementen im Englischen'. In Kohrt, Manfred and Jiirgen Lenerz (eds.): Sprache: Formen und Strukturen: Akten des 15. linguistischen Kolloquiums, Miinster 1980, I. (Linguistische Arbeiten 98) Tiibingen, Germany: Niemeyer 141-150 Klein, Ewan and Ivan A Sag: 1985, 'Type-driven translation,' Linguistics and philosophy 8/2:163-201 Koopman, Hilda: 1982, 'Control from COMP and comparative syntax'. In Kaye, Jonathan Derek, Hilda Koopman, and Dominique Sportiche (eds.): Projet sur les langues kru: premier rapport. Montreal, Canada: Departement de la linguistique, Universite du Quebec a Montreal 203-232
70
Jan Engh and Kristian Emil Kristoffersen
Koopman, Hilda: 1983, 'Control from COMP and comparative syntax'. Linguistic Review 2/4:365-391 Kopytro, R.: 1989, 'Control theory and the infinitival complementation in the language of William Shakespeare's plays'. Kwartalnik N eofilologiczn 36 l l :25-34 Kortmann, Bernd: 1991, Free adjuncts and absolutes in English: problems of control and interpretation. London, UK: Routledge Koster, Jan: 1984, 'On binding and control'. Linguistic inquiry 15/3:417459 Kostopoulou, Erato: 1989, 'Some consequences of the lack of PRO in Modem Greek'. Cahiers linguistiques d'Ottawa 17/33-53 Kristoffersen, Kristian Emil: 1996, 'Kontroll og kontrollteori'. NORskrift 89:7-18 Kristoffersen, Kristian Emil: Forthcoming. Syntactic and semantic aspects of Old Norse infinitivals. Doctoral thesis, Universitetet i Oslo, Norway Kung, Xue-Lei: 1991, 'Null subjects and control theory in Chinese'. CUNYForum: papers in linguistics 16/60-69 Kopcke, Klaus-Michael and Klaus-Uwe Panther: 1991, 'Kontrolle und Kontrollwechsel im Deutschen'. Zeitschrift fur Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 44/2:143-166 Ladusaw, William A.: 1987, 'Inference patterns from infinitival complements'. In Crowhurst, Megan (ed.): Papers from the sixth West Coast conference on formal linguistics. Stanford, Ca.: Stanford Linguistics Association 163-71 Ladusaw, William A and Nora C. England: 1985, 'Control and complementation in Kusaal'. In Odden, David (ed.): Current approaches to African linguistics, IV. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris 239-246 Ladusaw, William A and David R. Dowty: 1988, 'Toward a nongrammatical account of thematic roles'. In Wilkins 1988 62-74. Lamiroy, Beatrice: 1987, 'The Complementation of aspectual verbs in French'. Language 63/2:278-298
Contra/ - A Bibliography
71
Larson, Richard K.: 1991, 'Promise and the theory of control'. Linguistic inquiry 22/103-139. Larson, Richard K., Sabine Iatridou, Utpal Lahiri, and James Higginbotham (eds.): 1992, Control and grammar. (Studies in linguistics and philosophy 48) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Lasnik H.: 1992, Two notes on control and binding'. In Larson, Iatridou, Lahiri, and Higginbotham 1992 235-252 Law, Paul: [1993] 1996, 'On grammatical relations in Malagasy control structures'. In Burgess, Clifford S., Katarzyna Dziwirek, and Donna Gerdts (eds.): Grammatical relations: theoretical approaches to empirical questions. Stanford, Ca.: Center for the Study of Language and Information Leacock, Claudia: 1991, Lexically bas ed parsing with application to infinitival control constructions in English. Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York. Dissertation Abstracts International51/ll Lee, Myung-Hwan: 1991, Yengeuy thongceyhyensangey kwanhan yenkwu: GPSG-wa HPSG-uy cepkun [A Study on control .in English: GPSG and HPSG]. Doctoral thesis, Kyunghee University. Seoul, Korea Levinson, Stephen C.: 1987, 'Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora: a partial pragmatic reduction of binding and control phenomena'. Journal of linguistics 23 379-434 Lonzi, Lidia., M. Ester Zanobio, and Erminio Capitani: 1994, 'Semantic vs. syntactic subject: a comprehension test based on control constructions'. Brain and language. 47/1:32-51 Lødrup, Helge: 1991, 'Clausal complements .in English and Norwegian'. Norsk lingvistisk tidsskrift 9/105-136. Lødrup, Helge: [1995], 'Properties of Norwegian auxiliaries'. In Ott6sson, Kjartan Gyouson, Ruth Vatvedt Fjeld, and Ame Torp (eds.): Forthcoming. Proceedings from the IX. conference on general and Nm·dic linguistics. Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo 216-228 Mair, Christian 1987. 'Instabile Infinitivkonstruktionen im heutigen Englisch'. Linguistische Berichte 111:381-397
72
Jan Engh and Kristian Emil Kristoffersen
Mair, Christian: 1990a, 'A Contrastive analysis of object control in English and German'. Papers and studies in contrastive linguistics 25/85-101 Mair, Christian: 1990b, 'Die unterschiedliche Bedeutung des Kontextes bei der Bestimmung des logischen Subjekts verbspezifischer Infinitivkonstruktionen im Englischen und Deutschen'. In Bahner, Werner, Joachim Schildt, and Dieter Viehweger (eds.): Proceedings of the fourteenth international congress of linguists. Berlin/GDR, August 10- August 15, 1987. Berlin, Germany: Akademie-Verlag Manzini, Maria Rita: 1983, 'On control and control theory'. Linguistic inquiry 14:3, 421-446 Manzini, Maria Rita: 1986, 'On control and binding theory'. In Berman, S., J. Choe, and J. McConough (eds.): Papers from the sixteenth annual meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society. Amherst, Mass.: GLSA, University of Massachusetts McCloskey, James and Peter Sells: 1988, 'Control and A-chains in Modem Irish'. Natura/ language and linguistic theory 6/2:143-189 McDaniel, Dana, Helen Smith Cairns, and Hsu, Jennifer Ryan: 19901991, 'Control principles in the grammars of young children'. Language acquisition l/ 4:297-336 McDaniel, Dana, Helen Smith Cairns: 1990, 'Processing and acquisition of control structures by young children'. In Frazier, Lyn and Jill De Villiers (eds.): Language processing and language acquisition. (Studies in theoretical psycholinguistics 10) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer 313-23 Mendikoetxea, Amaya: 1994, 'Impersonality in non-finite contexts: The Spanish se construction in control and raising environments'. In Mazzola, Michael L. (ed.): Issues and theory in romance linguistics: selected papers from linguistic symposium on Romance languages XXIII, Aprill-4, 1993. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press 385-401 Minkoff, Seth Aaron: 1994, How same so-called 'thematic roles' that generate animate arguments are generated, and how they inform
Contra/ - A Bib/iography
73
binding and contra!. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. In MIT Working papers in linguistics Mohanan, Karuvannur P.: 1982, 'Grammatical relations in Malayalam'. In Bresnan 1982b 504-589 Mohanan, Karuvannur P.: 1983, 'Functional and anaphoric control'. Linguistic inquiry 14/4:641-674 Mohanan, Karuvannur P.: 1985, 'Remarks on control and control the ory'. Linguistic inquiry16 l 4:637-648 Morales, Amparo: 1989, 'Algunas consideraciones sobre la alternancia subjuntivo-infinitivo en las construcciones con para'. Nueva revista de filologia hispanica 37/1:27-42 Motsch, Wolfgang (ed.): 1989, Wortstruktur und Satzstruktur. (Linguistische Studien. Reihe A. Arbeitsberichte 194) Berlin, Germany: Akademie-Verlag Muysken, Pieter: 1981, 'The Theory of morphological control'. In Burke, Victoria and James Pustejovsky (eds.): Proceedings of the eleventh annual meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society. Amherst, Mass.: GLSA, University of Massachusetts 219-234 Nedjalkov, Igor: 1995, 'Converbs: control and interpretation [Review of Kortmann 1991]'. Journal of pragmatics 24/433-450 Negrao, Esmeralda Vailati: 1986, Anaphora in Brazilian Portuguese complement structures. Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wi. Neidle, Carol: 1982, 'Case agreement in Russian'. In Bresnan 1982b 391426 Nichols, Johanna: 1982, 'Prominence, cohesion and control: objectcontrolled predicate nominals in Russian'. In Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A Thompson (ed.): Studies in transitivity. (Syntax and Semantics 15) New York, N.Y.: Academic Press 319-350 Nikanne, Urpo: 1990, Zones and tiers: a study of thematic structure. (Studia fennica 35) Helsinki, Finland: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Se ura
74
Jan Engh and Kristian Emil Kristoffersen
Nikanne, Urpo: 1995: 'Action tier formation and argument linking'. Studia linguistica 1:1-31. Nikanne, Urpo: 1996a, 'Lexical conceptual structure and syntactic arguments'. Unpublished manuscript, University of Oslo, Norway Nikanne, U rp o: 1996b, 'Depictive adjuncts in Finnish'. Unpublished manuscript, University of Oslo, Norway Nishigauchi, Taisuke: 1984, 'Control and the thematic domain'. Language 60/215-250. Oh, Sunseek: 1988, 'A Promising control theory'. In MacLeod, Lynn, Gary Larson, and Diane Brentari (eds.): Chicago Linguistic Society 24th regional meeting 1988 Chicago, Il.: CLS 290-303 Panevova, Jarmila: 1986, 'The Czech infinitive in the functions of objective and the rules of coreference'. In Mey, Jacob L. (ed.):
Language and discourse: test and protest: a festschrift for Petr Sgall. (Linguistic and literary studies in Eastern Europe 19) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins 123-42 Panther, Klaus-Uwe: 1994, Kontrollphiinomene im Englischen und Deutschen aus semantisch-pragmatischer Perspektive. Tlibingen, Germany: Narr Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Klaus-Michael Kopcke: 1993, 'A cognitive approach to obligatory control phenomena in English and German'. Folia linguistica 27:57-105 Park, Hyom-yong: 1991, 'Control agreement principle and case feature'. Language research 27/3:521-45 Pellegrino, Elizabeth Minassian: [1986] 1987, Control verbs in English. Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC. Dissertation Abstracts International 48 l 6 Philippaki-Warburton, Irene: 1995, 'On control in Modem Greek'. Reading University working papers in linguistics 2:143-158 Philippaki-Warburton, Irene and Georgia Catsimali: [1995] 'Control in ancient Greek'. To appear in Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Greek linguistics, Salzburg.
Contra! - A Bibliography
75
Pingkarawat, Namtip: 1990, Empty noun phrases and the theory of contra!, with special reference to Thai. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illiois at Urbana-Champaign. Dissertation Abstracts International50/7 Pollard, Carl and Ivan A Sag: 1994, Head-driven phrase structure grammar. (Studies in contemporary linguistics.) (Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, Ca.) Chicago, Il.: University of Chicago Press [Chapter 7 is a revised version of Sag and Pollard 1991] Polo-Figueroa, Nicolas Ignacio: [1990] 1991, La estructura del sintagma nominal en espanol. Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa. Dissertation Abstracts International51/12 Postal, Paul M.: 1970, 'On coreferential complement subject deletion'. Linguistic inquiry 1:439-500. Quicoli, A Carlos: 1976, 'On Portuguese impersonal verbs'. In ScmidtRadefeldt, Jiirgen (ed.): Readings zn Portuguese linguistics. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holand 63-91 Quicoli, A Carlos: 1982, The structure of complementation. (Sig/a: studies in generative linguistic analysis 3) Ghent, Belgium: StoryScientia Radford, Andrew: 1981, Transformational grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Randriamasimanana, Charles: 1986, The Causatives of Malagasy. (Oceanic linguistic special publication 21) Honolulu, Ha: University of Hawaii Press Reinhart, Tanya and Eric Reuland: 1993, 'Reflexivity'. Linguistic inquiry 24/4:657-720 in infiniten Risch, Gabriela: 1989, 'Kontrollverhalten Komplementkonstruktionen'. In Motsch 1989 159-187 Rooryck, Johan: 1988a, 'Control and binding; relative clauses'. Leuvense bijdragen 77/2:191-197 Rooryck, Johan: 1988b, 'Une note sur les verbes de correlation'. Revue Roumaine de linguistique 33/3:151-153
76
Jan Engh and Kristian Emil Kristoffersen
Rooryck, Johan: 1989, 'Les Verbes a montee et a controle 'ambigus". Revue quebecoise de linguistique 18:1, 189-207 Rooryck, Johan: 1990, 'Montee et controle: une nouvelle analyse'. Le Franr;ais moderne 58/1-2:1-28 Rooryck, Johan: 1991, 'Out of control: deriving the reference of unexpressed infinitival subjects'. [Unpublished manuscript] Rooryck, Johan: [1990] 1992, 'On the distinction between raising and control'. In Hirschblihler, Paul and Konrad Koerner (eds.): Romance languages and modern linguistic theory: papers from 20th linguistic symposium on Romance languages, Ottawa, 10-14 Apr. 1990. (Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series 4: Current issues in linguistic Theory 91) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins 225-50 Rooryck, Johan: (to appear) 'How to get control without spending a module for it'. In Coopmans, Peter, Martin Everaert, and Jane Grimshaw (eds.): Lexical insertion and lexical specification. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Rosenbaum, Peter S.: 1967, The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Rosenbaum, Peter S.: 1970, 'A principle governing deletion in English sentential complementation'. In Jacobs, R.A. and P.A. Rosenbaum (eds.): Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn Rudanko, Juhani: 1989, Complementation and case Grammar. Albany, N.Y.: State University of NewYork Press Rudanko, Juhani: 1993, 'Reducing someone to grovelling: aspects of an object-control pattern in Present-Day English'. English studies 74/5:485-95 Rutten, Jan [Jean-Baptist Ignatius Wilhelmus Cornelis Maria Rutten]: 1991, Infinitival complements and auxiliaries. (Amsterdam studies in generative grammar 4) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Universiteit van Amsterdam
Control - A Bibliography
77
Ruwet, Nicolas: 1991, Raising and control revisited. In: Syntax and human experience. [Translated and edited by John Goldsmith] Chicago Il.: University of Chicago Press 56-81 Rognvaldsson, Eirikur: 1991, 'Quirky subjects in Old Icelandic'. In Sigurosson, Halldor Armann. (ed.): Papers from the twelfth Scandinavian conference of linguistics. Reykjavik, Iceland: Hask6la Islands Ruz ic a, Rudolf: 1982, 'KontroHprinzipien infiniter Satzformen: Infinitiv und Gerundium (deepric astie) irn Russischen und in anderen slavischen Sprachen'. Zeitschrift fur Slawistik 27/373-411 Ruz ic ka, Rudolf: 1983a, 'Autonomie und Interaktion von Syntax und Semantik'. In Ruz ic ka, Rudolf and W. Motsch (eds.): Untersuchungen zur Semantik. (Studia Grammatika 22) Berlin, Germany: Akademie-Verlag 15-59 Ruz ic ka, Rudolf: 1983b, 'Remarks on control'. Linguistic inquiry 14:309324 Ruz ic ka, Rudolf: 1984a, 'Illokutionare Kraft und Subjektkontrolle. 'Bitten' und 'Fr agen". Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 44 59-62 Ruz ic ka, Rudolf: 1984b, 'Zwischen Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik. Interaktion der "module"'. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte43/59-62 Ruz ic ka, Rudolf: 1985, 'Komplikation nnd Interaktion in der russischen Grammatik'. Zeitschrift fur Slawistik 30/1:17-29 Ruz ic ka, Rudolf: 1986, 'Control in competing frameworks'. In Mey, Jacob L. (ed.): Language and discourse: test and protest: a festschrift for Petr Sgall. (Linguistic and literary studies in Eastern Europe 19) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins 101-121 Sag, Ivan A and Carl Pollard: 1991, 'An Integrated theory of complement control'. Language 67/1:63-113 Sajavaara, Kari: 1988, 'Control and context'. In Klegraf, Josef and Dietrich Nehls (eds.): Essays on the English language and applied
linguistics on the occasion of Gerhard Heidelberg, Germany: Julius Groos 24-30
Nickel' s 60th birthday.
78
Jan Engh and Kristian Emil Kristoffersen
Sakaguchi, Mari: 1990, 'Control structures in Japanese'. In Hoji, Hajime (ed.): Japanese/Korean linguistics. Stanford, Ca.: Center for Study of Language and Information 303-17 Saxon, Leslie: 1986, 'Control and agreement in Dogrib'. In Proceedings of the first Eastern States conference on linguistics. Columbus, Oh.: Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University) 128-139 Shamir, E.: 1969, 'Linguistic form: algebraic linguistics'. In Meetham, A.R. and R.A. Hudson (eds.): Encyclopedia of linguistics. Information and control. Oxford, UK: Pergamon 270-272 Shannon, Thomas F.: [1982] 1983, The Syntax and semantics of permlsszve verbs in German. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University. Dissertation Abstracts International43/8 Shannon, Thomas F.: 1987, Aspects of complementation and control in
Modern German: The syntax and semantics of permissive verbs. (Goppinger Arbeiten zur Germanistik 424) Goppingen, Germany: Alfred Kfunmerle Shannon, Thomas F.: 1988a, 'Prolegomena to a theory of control'. In Gentry, Francis G. (ed.): Semper idem et novus: festschrift for Frank Banta. (Goppinger Arbeiten zur Germanistik 481) Goppingen, Germany: Alfred Kiimmerle Shannon, Thomas F.: 1988b, 'Towards a realistic theory of control'. In Henderson, Michael M.T. (ed.); 1987 Mid-America linguistics conference papers. Lawrence, Ka.: Department of Linguistics, University of Kansas 276-293 Sherman, Janet Cohen: 1983, The Acquisition of control in complement sentences: the ro le of structural and lexical factors. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. Sherman, Janet Cohen and Barbara Lust: 1986, 'Syntactic and lexical constraints on the acquisition of control in complement sentences'. In Lust, Barbara (ed.): Studies in the acquisition of anaphora, I: defining the constraints 279-308 Sherman, Janet Cohen and Barbara Lust: 1993 'Children are in control'. Cognition 46/1:1-51
Contra/ - A Bibliography
79
Sherman, Janet Cohen and Barbara Lust: In preparation [1993] 'A Proposal: how children learn "promise'" Shin, Soo-Song and Min-Haeng Lee: 1985, 'The logical form: a theory and its application to German'. Language research 21 l 4:461-478 Siebert-Ott, Gesa Maren: 1983, 'Kontrollprobleme in infiniten Komplernentkonstruktionen im Deutschen'. In Jongen, Rene, Sabine De Knop, Peter H. Neide, and Marie Paule Quix (eds.): Akten des 17. linguistischen Kolloquiums, Brussel, 1982 I , Sprache, Diskurs und Text (Linguistische Arbeiten 133-134) Tiibingen, Germany: Nierneyer 99-109 Siebert-Ott, Gesa: 1983/1985, 'Bernerkungen zu den Elernenten einer Theorie der Kontrolle'. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik. 22:127-143. Also in Abraham, Werner (ed.): Erkliirende Syntax des Deutschen. Tiibingen, Germany: Narr 255-270 Simpson, Jane and Joan W. Bresnan: 1982/1983, 'Control and obviation in Warlpiri'. In Flickinger, Daniel P., Marlys Macken, and Nancy Wiegand (eds.): Proceedings of the first West Coast conference on formal linguistics. Stanford, Ca.: Linguistics Department, Stanford University 280-291. Also in Natural language and linguistic theory 1/49-64 Soh, Dae-Young: 1989, Yengeuy thongcey, kyelsokmich mwuceyhan uyconkwumwuney kwan han yenkwu [Control, binding, and unbounded dependency in English: An HPSG Approach]. Master's thesis, Kyunghee University. Seoul, Korea Srikumar, K.: 1991, 'Contro l in Malayalam'. International journal of Dravidian linguistic 20/1:104-16 Stainton, Robert J.: 1995, 'A note on pedir and control in Spanish'. Cahiers linguistiques d'Ottawa 23:11-22. Stechow, Amim von and Dieter Wunderlich: 1989, 'Distinguo. Eine Antwort auf Dieter Wunderlich'. Linguistische Berichte 122:330-341 Steube, Anita: [1989] 1992, 'Kompositionsprinzipien in der Semantischen Form und das Problem der Autonomie der Semantik' In Suchsland,
80
Jan Engh and Kristian Emil Kristoffersen
Peter (ed.): Biologische und soziale Grundlagen der Sprache. (Linguistische Arbeiten 280) Ttibingen, Germany: Niemeyer 299-309 Stowell, Tim: 1991, 'The Alignment of arguments in adjective phrases'. In Rothstein, Susan D. (ed.): Perspectives on phrase structure: heads and licensing. (Syntax and semantics 25) San Diego, Ca.: Academic Press 105-38 Sundman, M.: 1983, 'Control, subject and voice in Swedish'. In Karlson, Fred (ed.): Papers from the seventh Scandinavian conference of linguistics: Hanasaari, Finland, December 17-19,1982. Helsinki, Finland: University of Helsinki, Department of General Linguistics. Publications 9:101-112 Tanaka, Shichiro: 1983, 'NP structure and principles'. Linguistic analysis 11/1:1-26 Tanaka, Shichiro: 1985, 'NP structure, the generalized control rule, and the ECP'. Linguistic analysis 15/4:257-267 Thorpe, Alana Irene: 1992, Clitic placement in complex sentences in Czech. Doctoral dissertation, Brown University. Dissertation Abstracts International Torrego, Esther: 1996, 'On quantifier float in control clauses'. Linguistic inquiry 27/1:111-126 Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido: 1987, 'Control theory. A government and binding approach to infinitival complementation'. Antwerp papers in linguistics 52/1-148 Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido: 1990a, 'Chain formation and the distribution of PRO'. In MIT Working papers in linguistics 12/207-222 Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido: 1990b, 'On control and binding'. In van Lit, John, Rene Mulder, and Rint Sybesma (eds.): Proceedings of the Leiden conference for junior linguists l. Leiden, The Netherlands: University of Leiden 155-165. Doctoral Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido: 1990c, PRO-legomena. dissertation, University of Antwerp, Belgium Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido: 1994, PRO-legomena. Distribution and reference of infinitival subjects. (Linguistic models 19) Berlin,
Contra! - A Bibliography
81
Germany: Mouton de Gru yter [A substantially revised version of van den Wyngaerd 1990, PRO-legomena] van Haaften, T. and A Pauw: 1982, 'Het begrepen subject, en fantoom in de taalbeschrijving'. Forum der letteren 23/2:124-146 Varlokosta, S. and N. Hornsteirr: 1993, 'Control in Modem Greek'. In Schafer, A (ed.): Papers from the twentythird annua! meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society. Arnherst, Mass.: GLSA, University of Massachusetts Vermandere, Dieter: 1996, [Review of van den Wyngaerd 1994] Linguistics 34/167-170 Virret, Marie-Therese: 1986, 'Remarque sur deux hypotheses parametriques'. Revue quebecoise de linguistiqu 15/2:280-287 Virret, Marie-Therese: 1988, 'Implicit arguments and control in middles and passives'. In Birdsong, David and Jean-Pierre Montreuil (eds.): Advances in Romance linguistics. (Publications in language sciences 28) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris 427-437 Wachtel, Tom: 1979, 'Nouns, relative clauses, and pragmatic control'. Linguistic inquiry lO l 511-14 Webber, Bonnie L. Nash and Ivan A Sag: 1978, 'Under whose control?'. Linguistic inquiry 9 /?:138-41 Wegener, Heide: 1989, "'Kontrolle" - semantisch gesehen. Zur Interpretation von Infinitivkomplementen irn Deutschen'. Deutsche Sprache 17/3:206-228 Wegener, Heide: [1987] 1988, 'Relations semantiques a l'interieur de constructions a trois actants'. In Akten des 22. linguistischen Kolloquiums, Paris 1987. Also in Weber, Heinrich and Ryszard Zuber (eds.): Linguistik parisette. (Linguistische Arbeiten 203) Tubingen, Germany: Niemeyer 121-133 Wettengel, Tanguy: [1990] 1992, 'Controle du sujet d'infinitif'. In Actes du IVe colloque de linguistique hispanique, Limoges, 30 et 31 mars 1990. Also in Luquet, Gilles (ed.): Actualites de la recherche en linguistique hispanique. Limoges: Presses Universitaires de Limoges and Presses Universitaires du Limousin 253-70
82
Jan Engh and Kristian Emil Kristoffersen
Wexler, Kenneth: 1992, 'Some issues in the growth of control'. In Larson, Iatridou, Lahiri, and Higginbotham 1992 253-296 Wilkins, Wendy. (ed.): 1988, Thematic relations. (Syntax and semantics 21) San Diego, Ca.: Academic Press Williams, Edwin: 1987, 'Implicit arguments, the binding theory, and control'. Natural language and linguistic theor 5/2:151-180 Williams, Edwin: 1992, 'Adjunct control'. In Larson, Iatridou, Lahiri, and Higginbotham 1992 297-322 Williams, Edwin: 1994, Thematic structure in syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press Wunderlich, Dieter: 1989, 'Arnim von Stechow, das Nichts und die Lexikalisten'. Linguistische Berichte 122/321-329 Yang, Dong Whee: 1984, 'The Extended control theory'. Language research 20/1:19-30 Yang, Dong Whee: 1985, 'On the integrity of control theory'. In Berman, S., J.-W. Choe, and J. McDonough (eds.): Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, Mass.: GLSA, University of Massachusetts 15/389-408 Zabrocki, T.: 1981, 'Lexical rules of semantic interpretation. Control and NP movement in English and Polish'. Seria filologia angielska Poznaft 14/5-167 Zec, Draga: 1987, 'On obligatory control in clausal complements'. In Iida, Masayo, Stephen Wechsler, and Draga Zec (eds.): Working
papers in grammatical theory and discourse structure: Interactions of morphology, syntax, and discourse. (CSLI lecture notes 11) Stanford, Ca.: Center for Study of Language and Information
Contra/ - A Bibliography
83
KEY TO THE LINGUISTIC JOURNALS
Anthropological linguistics: exploring the languages of the world. Bloomington, In.: Department of Anthropology, Indiana University Antwerp papers in linguistics. Antwerp, Belgium: Universiteit Antwerpen, Departement Germaanse, Afdeling Linguistiek Arabica: revue d'etudes arabes. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Brain and language. New York, N.Y.: Academic Press Bulletin de la section de linguistique de la faculte des lettres de Lausanne. Lausanne, Switzerland Cahiers linguistiques d'Ottawa. Ottawa, Canada: Universite d'Ottawa Cognition: international journal of cognitive science. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Computational linguistics. Morristown, N.J. : The Association for Computational Linguistics. CUNYForum: papers in linguistics. New York, N.Y.: Queens College Press for the Graduate Center, City University of New York and the Department of Linguistics, Queens College Deutsche Sprache: Zeitschrift for Theorie, Praxis, Dokumentation. Berlin, Germany: E. Schmidt Diachronica: international journal for historical linguistics. Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: John Benjamins English studies: a journal of English language and literature. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets Folia linguistica: acta Societatis linguisticae Europaeae. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton Forum der letteren: tijdschrift voor taal- en letterkunde. The Hague, The Netherlands: Smits Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik. Groningen, The Netherlands: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Germanistische Institut International journal of American linguistics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press International journal of Dravidian linguistics. Trivandrum, Kerala, India: Dravidian Linguistics Association
84
fan Engh and Kristian Emil Kristoffersen
Journal of child language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Journal of English linguistics. Athens, Ga. Journal of linguistic research. Bloomington, In.: Indiana University Linguistics Club Journal of linguistics. London, UK: Cambridge University Press Journal of memory and language. New York, N.Y.: Academic Press Journal of pragmatics: an interdisciplinary monthly of language studies. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Journal of semantics: an international journal for the interdisciplinary study of the semantics of natura[ language. Oxford: Oxford University Press Kwartalnik neofilologiczny. Warszawa, Poland: Pan stwowe Wydawnctwo Naukowe Langages. Paris, France: Larousse Language: journal of the Linguistic Society of America. Baltimore, Md.: W averly Press Language acquisition: a journal of developmental linguistics. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Language and linguistics in Melanesia: journal of the Linguistic Society of Papua New Guinea. Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea Language research (Ohak yon'gu). Seoul, Korea: Soul Taehakkyo Ohak Yon'guso Language sciences: a world journal of the sciences of language. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press Le Franr;ais moderne: revue de linguistique franr;aise. Paris, France: Le Conseil international de la langue fran