Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 115–135 | Cite as

On subject reference and the cartography of clause types

A commentary on the paper by Biswas


In this commentary, I will critically discuss Priyanka Biswas’ contribution to this volume (2013), in which she examines the properties of five types of clauses headed by participial verb forms in Bangla and proposes an account of their sometimes novel properties in terms of Landau (2004)’s theory of control. I will take Biswas’ empirical analysis as a starting point for a broader discussion of finiteness and the relationship between different types of embedded clauses and the kinds of subjects they allow. I will argue that the theoretical treatment Biswas herself adopts does not allow a proper explanation of the connection, and will propose a distinct approach in terms of differential clause sizes. While this approach will remain highly speculative, I will argue that it at least allows us to formulate falsifiable hypotheses with testable predictions, and thus could serve as the foundation for a truly insightful theory of the distribution of subject types.


Finiteness Cartography Subjects Case Control Embedding Clause-size Bangla 



I would like to thank Priyanka Biswas, Gillian Ramchand, Sandhya Sundaresan and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper, as well as Rajesh Bhatt, Janne Bondi Johannessen, Per Erik Solberg, Tarald Taraldsen, Susi Wurmbrand and the audience of a recent talk given at UMass Amherst for discussion of related work presented in other forms. Special thanks are also due to the participants of the FiSAL conference in Tromsø for stimulating papers and discussion, and especially to Priyanka Biswas for the careful and thought-provoking paper that led to this commentary.


  1. Baker, Mark. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bianchi, Valentina. 2003. On finiteness as logophoric anchoring. In Temps et point de vue/tense and point of view, eds. Jacqueline Guéron and Liliane Tasmovski, 213–246. Nanterre: Université Paris X Nanterre. Google Scholar
  3. Biswas, Priyanka. 2013. The role of tense and agreement in the licensing of subjects: Evidence from participial clauses in Bangla. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. doi: 10.1007/s11049-013-9212-x (this volume). Google Scholar
  4. Giorgi, Alessandra. 2010. About the speaker: Towards a syntax of indexicality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  5. Landau, Idan. 2004. The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22: 811–877. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Landau, Idan. 2006. Severing the distribution of PRO from case. Syntax 9: 32–66. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Progovac, Ljiljana. 2006. The syntax of nonsententials: Small clauses and phrases at the root. In The syntax of nonsententials: Multidisciplinary perspectives, eds. Ljiljana Progovac, Kate Paesani, Eugenia Casielles, and Ellen Barton, 33–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ramchand, Gillian. 2013. Deriving variable linearization. A commentary on Simpson and Syed (2013). Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. doi: 10.1007/s11049-013-9225-5.
  9. Reinhart, Tanya, and Eric Reuland. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 657–720. Google Scholar
  10. Schütze, Carson. 1997. Infl in child and adult language: Agreement, case and licensing. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Google Scholar
  11. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2004. The syntax of person, tense and speech features. Rivista Di Linguistica 16: 219–251. Google Scholar
  12. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2008. The case of PRO. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26: 403–450. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Simpson, Andrew, and Saurov Syed. 2013. Finiteness, negation and the directionality of headedness in Bangla. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. doi: 10.1007/s11049-013-9223-7 (this volume). Google Scholar
  14. Stowell, Tim. 1982. The tense of infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 561–570. Google Scholar
  15. Sundaresan, Sandhya. 2012. Context and (co)reference in the syntax and its interfaces. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Tromsø (CASTL)/Universität Stuttgart. Google Scholar
  16. Sundaresan, Sandhya. 2013. Making sense of silence: Finiteness and the (OC) pro vs. pro distinction. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. doi: 10.1007/s11049-013-9216-6 (this volume). Google Scholar
  17. Sundaresan, Sandhya, and Thomas McFadden. 2009. Subject distribution in Tamil and other languages: Selection vs. case. Journal of South Asian Linguistics 2: 5–34. Google Scholar
  18. Wurmbrand, Susanne. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS)BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations