Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 811–877 | Cite as

The Scale of Finiteness and the Calculus of Control

  • Idan Landau


Prevalent treatments of Obligatory Control (OC) derive the distribution of PRO from either government or case theory. However, ample crosslinguistic evidence demonstrates that PRO is case-marked just like any other DP. The phenomenon of finite control in the Balkan languages and in Hebrew, where subjunctive complements exhibit OC, demonstrates that the licensing of PRO must be sensitive to the distribution of the features [Tense] and [Agr] both on I0 and C0 OC is conceived as an instance of Agree; a local calculus, interacting with feature checking and deletion, determines that PRO is in general the "elsewhere'' case of referential subjects. However, the two types of subjects may alternate in certain environments, an inexplicable fact for most existing accounts. The system proposed naturally extends to other types of complements, like inflected infinitives and obviative subjunctives. The resulting typology offers a systematic picture of the intricate ways in which finiteness and control interact in different languages.


Artificial Intelligence Prevalent Treatment Case Theory Finite Control Feature Check 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Avrutin, Sergey and Maria Babyonyshev. 1997. 'Obviation in Subjunctive Clauses and Evidence from Russian', Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15, 229–262.Google Scholar
  2. Babby, Leonard. 1998. 'Subject Control as Direct Predication: Evidence from Russian', Proceedings of the 6th Meeting of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, Michigan Slavic Publications, Michigan University, Ann Arbor, pp. 17–37.Google Scholar
  3. Bailyn, John F. 1995. A Configurational Approach to Russian “Free” Word Order, PhD dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca.Google Scholar
  4. Baltin, Mark and Leslie Barrett. 2002. 'The Content of Null Case', unpublished manuscript, New York University, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Bayer, Joseph. 1984. 'Comp in Bavarian Syntax', The Linguistic Review 3, 209–274.Google Scholar
  6. Bejar, Susana and Diane Massam. 1999. 'Multiple Case Checking', Syntax 2, 65–79.Google Scholar
  7. Borer, Hagit. 1980. 'Empty Subjects in Modern Hebrew and Constraints on Thematic Relations', in J. Jensen (ed.), Proceedings of the 10th Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, Cahiers linguistiques d'Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, pp. 25–38.Google Scholar
  8. Borer, Hagit. 1983. Parametric Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  9. Borer, Hagit. 1986. 'I-Subjects', Linguistic Inquiry 17, 375–416.Google Scholar
  10. Borer, Hagit. 1989. 'Anaphoric AGR', in Osvaldo Jaeggli and Kenneth J. Safir (eds.), The Null Subject Parameter, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 69–109.Google Scholar
  11. Bouchard, Denis. 1984. On the Content of Empty Categories, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  12. Bresnan, Joan. 1972. Theory of Complementation in English Syntax, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  13. Calabrese, Andrea. 1992. 'The Lack of Infinitival Clauses in Salentino: A Synchronic Analysis', in Christiane Laeufer and Terrell A. Morgan (eds.), Theoretical Analyses in Romance Linguistics, Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 267–294.Google Scholar
  14. Chierchia, Gennaro. 1984. Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
  15. Chierchia, Gennaro. 1989. 'Structured Meanings, Thematic Roles and Control', in Gennaro Chierchia, Barbara Partee, and Raymond Turner (eds.), Properties, Types and Meanings II, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 131–166.Google Scholar
  16. Chierchia, Gennaro. 1990. 'Anaphora and Attitudes De S', in Renate Bartsch, Johan van Benthem and Peter van Emde Boas (eds.), Semantics and Contextual Expression, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 1–32.Google Scholar
  17. Chomsky, Noam. 1980. 'On Binding', Linguistic Inquiry 11, 1–46.Google Scholar
  18. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  19. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use, Praeger, Westport, CT.Google Scholar
  20. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. 'Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework', in Roger Martin, David Michels and Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 89–155.Google Scholar
  21. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. 'Derivation by Phase', in Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1–52.Google Scholar
  22. Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik. 1993. 'The Theory of Principles and Parameters', in Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld, and Theo Vennemann (eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 506–569.Google Scholar
  23. Clark, Robin. 1990. Thematic Theory in Syntax and Interpretation, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  24. Comorovsky, Ileana. 1985. 'Control and Obviation in Romanian', in Choi Soonja, Dan Devitt, Wynn Janis, Terry McCoy, and Zheng-sheng Zhang (eds.), Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, Ohio State University, OH, pp. 47–56.Google Scholar
  25. Comrie, Bernard. 1974. 'The Second Dative: A Transformational Approach', in Richard Brecht and Catherine Chvany (eds.), Slavic Transformational Syntax, Michigan Slavic Materials No. 10, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, pp. 123–150.Google Scholar
  26. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1994. The Syntax of Romanian, Comparative Studies in Romance, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin and New York.Google Scholar
  27. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 2001. 'Head-to-Head Merge in Balkan Subjunctives and Locality', in María Luisa Rivero and Angela Ralli (eds.), Comparative Syntax of Balkan Languges, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 44–73.Google Scholar
  28. Doron, Edit. 1983. Verbless Predicates in Hebrew, PhD dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
  29. Doron, Edit. 1999. 'V-Movement and VP-Ellipsis', in Elabbas Benmamoun and Shalom Lappin (eds.), Fragments: Studies in Ellipsis and Gapping, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 124–140.Google Scholar
  30. Dowty, David. 1985. 'On Recent Analyses of the Semantics of Control', Linguistics and Philosophy 8, 291–331.Google Scholar
  31. Enç, Mürvet. 1987. 'Anchoring Conditions for Tense', Linguistic Inquir 18, 633–657.Google Scholar
  32. Farkas, Donka F. 1985. 'Obligatorily Controlled Subjects in Romanian', in William H. Eilfort, Paul D. Kroeber, and Karen L. Peterson (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago, Chicago, pp. 90–100.Google Scholar
  33. Farkas, Donka F. 1992. 'On Obviation', in Ivan A. Sag and Anna Szabolcsi (eds.), Lexical Matters, CSLI, Stanford, CA, pp. 85–110.Google Scholar
  34. Finer, Daniel. 1985. 'The Syntax of Switch Reference', Linguistic Inquiry 16, 35–55.Google Scholar
  35. Franks, Steven and Norbert Hornstein. 1992. 'Secondary Predication in Russian and Proper Government of PRO', in Richard Larson, Sabine Iatridou, Utpal Lahiri, and James Higginbotham (eds.), Control and Grammar, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 1–50.Google Scholar
  36. Ghomeshi, Jila. 2001. 'Control and Thematic Agreement', Canadian Journal of Linguistics 46, 9–40.Google Scholar
  37. Giorgi, Alessandra and Fabio Pianesi. 1997. Tense and Aspect: From Semantics to Morphosyntax, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  38. Haegeman, Liliane. 1986. 'INFL, COMP, and Nominative Case Assignment in Flemish In-finitivals', in Pieter Muysken and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), Features and Projections, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 123–137.Google Scholar
  39. Haegeman, Liliane. 1992. Theory and Description in Generative Syntax: A Case Study in West Flemish, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  40. Hashemipour, Peggy. 1988. 'Finite Control in Modern Persian', in Hagit Borer (ed.), Proceedings of the 7th Meeting of the West Coast Conference of Formal Linguistics, CSLI Publications, Stanford CA, pp. 115–128.Google Scholar
  41. Henry, Alison. 1992. 'Infinitives in a for-to Dialect', Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10, 279–301.Google Scholar
  42. Higginbotham, James. 1992. 'Reference and Control', in Richard Larson, Sabine Iatridou, Utpal Lahiri, and James Higginbotham (eds.), Control and Grammar, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 79–108.Google Scholar
  43. Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. 'Movement and Control', Linguistic Inquiry 30, 69–96.Google Scholar
  44. Iatridou, Sabine. 1988. 'On Nominative Case Assignment and a Few Related Things', manuscript, MIT, in Colin Phillips (ed.) (1993), Papers on Case and Agreement II, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19, MIT, Cambridge, MA, pp. 175–196.Google Scholar
  45. Jaeggli, Osvaldo and Kenneth J. Safir. 1989. 'The Null Subject Parameter and Parametric Theory', in Osvaldo Jaeggli and Kenneth J. Safir (eds.), The Null Subject Parameter, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 1–44.Google Scholar
  46. Kayne, Richard. 1991. 'Romance Clitics, Verb Movement and PRO', Linguistic Inquiry 22, 647–686.Google Scholar
  47. Kempchinsky, Paula. 1986. Romance Subjunctive Clauses and Logical Form, PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  48. Koster, Jan. 1984. 'On Binding and Control', Linguistic Inquiry 15, 417–459.Google Scholar
  49. Koster, Jan and Robert May. 1982. 'On the Constituency of Infinitives', Language 58, 117–143.Google Scholar
  50. Krapova, Iliyana. 2001. 'Subjunctives in Bulgarian and Modern Greek', in María Luisa Rivero and Angela Ralli (eds.), Comparative Syntax of Balkan Languages, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 105–126.Google Scholar
  51. Krapova, Iliyana and Vassil Petkov. 1999. 'Subjunctive Complements, Null Subjects and Case Checking in Bulgarian', in Dziwirek Katarzyna, Herbert Coats, and Cynthia M. Vakareliyska (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Meeting of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, Michigan Slavic Publications, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pp. 267–285.Google Scholar
  52. Landau, Idan. 1999. 'Psych Adjectives and Semantic Selection', The Linguistic Review 16, 333–358.Google Scholar
  53. Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of Control: Structure and Meaning in Infinitival Constructions, Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  54. Landau, Idan. 2003. 'Movement Out of Control', Linguistic Inquiry 34, 471–498.Google Scholar
  55. Lebeaux, David. 1985. 'Locality and Anaphoric Binding', The Linguistic Review 4, 343–363.Google Scholar
  56. Manzini, M. Rita. 1983. 'On Control and Control Theory', Linguistic Inquiry 14, 421–446.Google Scholar
  57. Martin, Roger A. 1996. A Minimalist Theory of PRO and Control, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  58. Martin, Roger A. 2001. 'Null Case and the Distribution of PRO', Linguistic Inquiry 32, 141–166.Google Scholar
  59. Moore, John and David M. Perlmutter. 2000. 'What Does It Take to be a Dative Subject?', Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18, 373–416.Google Scholar
  60. Nadahalli, Jayashree. 1998. Aspects of Kannada Grammar, Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  61. Neidle, Carol Jan. 1988. The Role of Case in Russian Syntax, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  62. O'Neil, John H. 1997. Means of Control: Deriving the Properties of PRO in the Minimalist Program, Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  63. Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego. 2001. 'T-to-C Movement: Causes and Consequences', in Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, MIT Press, Cambridge,MA, pp. 355–426.Google Scholar
  64. Petter, Marga. 1998. Getting PRO under Control, LOT International Series, Vol. 8, HIL, Holland Academic Graphics, The Hague.Google Scholar
  65. Philippaki-Warburton, Irene. 1987. 'The Theory of Empty Categories and the Pro-Drop Parameter in Modern Greek', Journal of Linguistics 23, 289–318.Google Scholar
  66. Philippaki-Warburton, Irene and Georgia Catsimali. 1999. 'On Control in Greek', in Artemis Alexiadou, Geoffrey C. Horrocks, and Melita Stavrou (eds.), Studies in Greek Syntax, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 153–167.Google Scholar
  67. Picallo, Carme. 1984. 'The Infl Node and the Null Subject Parameter', Linguistic Inquiry 15, 75–102.Google Scholar
  68. Progovac, Ljiljana. 1993. 'Subjunctive: The (Mis)behavior of Anaphors and Negative Polarity', The Linguistic Review 10, 37–59.Google Scholar
  69. Quer, Josep. 2001. 'Interpreting Mood', Probus 13, 81–111.Google Scholar
  70. Raposo, Eduardo. 1987. 'Case Theory and Infl-to-Comp: The Inflected Infinitive in European Portuguese', Linguistic Inquiry 18, 85–109.Google Scholar
  71. Reinhart, Tanya and Eric Reuland. 1993. 'Reflexivity', Linguistic Inquiry 24, 657–720.Google Scholar
  72. Reuland, Eric, and Tanya Reinhart. 1995. 'Pronouns, Anaphors and Case', in Hubert Haider, Susan Olsen, and Sten Vikner (eds.), Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 241–268.Google Scholar
  73. Ritter, Elisabeth. 1995. 'On the Syntactic Category of Pronouns and Agreement', Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13, 405–443.Google Scholar
  74. Rivero, Marąa Luisa and Angela Ralli (eds.). 2001. Comparative Syntax of Balkan Languages, Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  75. Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  76. Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. 'Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of pro', Linguistic Inquiry 17, 501–557.Google Scholar
  77. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. 'The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery', in Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 281–337.Google Scholar
  78. Roussou, Anna. 2001. 'Control and Raising in and out of Subjunctive Complements', in María Luisa Rivero and Angela Ralli (eds)., Comparative Syntax of Balken Languages, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 74–104.Google Scholar
  79. Ruwet, Nicholas. 1984. 'Je veux partir /Je veux que partir', in Cahiers de Grammaire, Chap. 7, Le Mirail, Toulouse.Google Scholar
  80. Sauerland, Uli and Paul Elbourne. 2002. 'Total Reconstruction, PF Movement, and Derivational Order', Linguistic Inquiry 33, 283–319.Google Scholar
  81. Saxon, Leslie. 1984. 'Control and Agreement in Dogrib', in Gloria Alvarez, Belinda Brodie, and Terry McCoy (eds.), Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, Ohio State University, OH.Google Scholar
  82. Shlonsky, Ur. 1987. Null and Displaced Subjects, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  83. Shlonsky, Ur. 1990. 'Pro in Hebrew Subject Inversion', Linguistic Inquiry 21, 263–275.Google Scholar
  84. Shlonsky, Ur. 1997. Clause Structure and Word Order in Hebrew and Arabic: An Essay in Comparative Semitic Syntax, Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  85. Sigurðsson, Halldór A. 1991. 'Icelandic Case-Marked PRO and the Licensing of Lexical Arguments', Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9, 327–363.Google Scholar
  86. Suñer, Margarita. 1984. ''Controlled pro', in P. Baldi (ed.), Proceedings of the 12th Meeting of the Linguistic Symposium of Romance Languages, pp. 253–273.Google Scholar
  87. Terzi, Arhonto. 1992. PRO in Finite Clauses: A Study of the Inflectional Heads of the Balkan Languages, Ph.D. dissertation, CUNY Graduate Center, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  88. Terzi, Arhonto. 1997. 'PRO and Null Case in Finite Clauses', The Linguistic Review 14, 335–360.Google Scholar
  89. Tóth, Ildikó. 2000. Inflected Infinitives in Hungarian, Ph.D. dissertation, TILDIL, Tilburg University, Tilburg.Google Scholar
  90. Turano, Giuseppina. 1994. Syntactic Dependencies in Albanian, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florence, Florence.Google Scholar
  91. Varlokosta, Spyridoula. 1993. 'Control in Modern Greek', in Carol A. Mason, Susan M. Powers, and Cristina Schmitt (eds.), University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 1, pp. 144–163.Google Scholar
  92. Varlokosta, Spyridoula and Norbert Hornstein. 1993. 'Control in Modern Greek', in A. Schafer (ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, GLSA, Amherst, MA, pp. 507–521.Google Scholar
  93. Williams, Edwin. 1980. 'Predication', Linguistic Inquiry 11, 203–238.Google Scholar
  94. Wurmbrand, Susi. (2002). 'Semantic vs. Syntactic Control', in Jan Wouter Zwart and Werner Abraham (eds.), Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax: Proceedings of the 15th Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 93–127.Google Scholar
  95. Wurmbrand, Susi. 2003. Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure, Studies in Generative Grammar 55, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
  96. Zec, Draga. 1987. 'On Obligatory Control in Clausal Complements', in Iida Masayo, Steven Wechsler, and Draga Zec (eds.), Working Papers in Grammatical Theory and Discourse Structure, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, pp. 139–168.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Idan Landau
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Foreign Literatures & LinquisticsBen Gurion University, P.O.BoxBeer ShevaIsrael

Personalised recommendations