Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 877–924 | Cite as

Two routes of control: evidence from case transmission in Russian

Original Paper

Abstract

The unpronounced subject of infinitives, PRO, bears standard case, which is reflected on agreeing predicative elements in languages like Russian, Icelandic, Ancient Greek, etc. This case can be independent from the case of the controller DP, or identical to it (‘case transmission’). We report the findings of a novel study of case transmission in Russian, based on data collected from 30 speakers. The findings contradict some key generalizations that have gone unchallenged in the field for decades; specifically, case transmission is much more prevalent than previously assumed, often co-occurring with the option of independent case. The pattern of case transmission is determined by the interaction of a complex set of factors—the grammatical function of the controller, the shape of the complementizer, the type of control relation (exhaustive or partial), and more. The proposed analysis builds on “The Agreement Model of Obligatory Control (OC)” (Landau 2000, 2004, 2006) and strongly supports the claim that OC exploits two routes—either a direct Agree relation with PRO, or one mediated by the infinitival C. It is derivationally local and free of the “look-ahead” properties inherent to earlier accounts. Finally, we provide a description of the documented crosslinguistic variation in this domain, and situate it within a tight typological model.

Keywords

Obligatory control Case transmission Russian syntax PRO Partial control 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrews, Avery D. 1971. Case agreement of predicate modifiers in Ancient Greek. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 127–151. Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, Avery D. 1976. The VP-complement analysis in Modern Icelandic. In NELS 6: proceedings of the 6th meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, eds. Joan Maling, and Annie Zaenen, 1–21. Amherst: GLSA. [Reprinted in Modern Icelandic syntax, eds. Joan Maling and Annie Zaenen. Vol.  24 of Syntax and semantics, 165–185. San Diego: Academic Press.]. Google Scholar
  3. Andrews, Avery D. 1982. The representation of case in Modern Icelandic. In The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. Joan Bresnan, 424–503. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  4. Andrews, Avery D. 1990. Case structures and control in Modern Icelandic. In Modern Icelandic syntax, eds. Joan Maling, and Annie Zaenen. Vol. 24 of Syntax and semantics, 187–234. San Diego: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  5. Babby, Leonard H. 1991. Noncanonical configurational case assignment strategies. In Cornell working papers in linguistics, vol. 9, eds. Almeida Toribio, and Wayne Harbert, 1–55. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Google Scholar
  6. Babby, Leonard H. 1998. Subject control as direct predication: evidence from Russian. In Proceedings of the 6th meeting of formal approaches to Slavic linguistics, eds. Željko Boškovič, Steven Franks, and William Snyder, 17–37. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. Google Scholar
  7. Babby, Leonard H., Steven Franks. 1998. The syntax of adverbial participles in Russian revisited. Slavic and East European Journal 42: 117–149. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bailyn, John F. 2001. The syntax of Slavic predicate case. In ZAS occasional papers in linguistics, vol. 22, eds. Gerhard Jäger, Anatoli Strigin, Chris Wilder, and Niina Zhang, 1–26. Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. Google Scholar
  9. Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: a theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  10. Baker, Mark. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  11. Bobaljik, Jonathan, and Idan Landau. 2007. Icelandic control is not A-movement: the case from case. Linguistic Inquiry (to appear). Google Scholar
  12. Boeckx, Cedric, and Norbert Hornstein. 2006. Control in Icelandic and theories of control. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 591–606. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bošković, Željko. 1994. D-structure, theta-criterion and movement into theta-positions. Linguistic Analysis 24: 247–286. Google Scholar
  14. Bošković, Željko. 2001. On the nature of the syntax-phonology interface: cliticization and related phenomena. Oxford: Elsevier Science. Google Scholar
  15. Bošković, Željko, and Howard Lasnik. 2003. On the distribution of null complementizers. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 527–546. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carnie, Andrew, and Heidi Harley. 1997. PRO, the EPP and nominative case: evidence from Irish infinitivals. In University of Pennsylvania working papers in linguistics, vol. 4, eds. Charles Boberg, Miriam Meyerhoff, and Stephanie Strassel, 71–86. Google Scholar
  17. Cecchetto, Carlo, and Renato Oniga. 2004. A challenge to null case theory. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 141–149. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chomsky, Noam. 1980. On binding. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 1–46. Google Scholar
  19. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  20. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In Step by step: essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  21. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: a life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  22. Comorovski, Ileana. 1985. Control and obviation in Romanian. In ESCOL 2: proceedings of the eastern states conference on linguistics, eds. Soonja Choi, Dan Devitt, Wynn Janis, Terry McCoy, and Zheng-Sheng Zhang, 47–56. Ithaca: CLC Publications. Google Scholar
  23. Comrie, Bernard. 1974. The second dative: a transformational approach. In Slavic transformational syntax, Michigan Slavic materials, No. 10, eds. Richard Brecht, and Catherine Chvany, 123–150. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press. Google Scholar
  24. Fleisher, Nicholas. 2006. Russian dative subjects, case and control. Manuscript, University of California, Berkeley. Google Scholar
  25. Franks, Steven. 1990. Case, configuration and argumenthood: reflections on the second dative. Russian Linguistics 14: 231–254. Google Scholar
  26. Franks, Steven. 1995. Parameters of Slavic morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  27. Franks, Steven. 1998. Parameters of Slavic morphosyntax revisited: a minimalist retrospective. In Proceedings of the 6th meeting of formal approaches to Slavic linguistics, eds. Željko Boškovič, Steven Franks, and William Snyder, 134–165. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. Google Scholar
  28. Franks, Steven, and Norbert Hornstein. 1992. Secondary predication in Russian and proper government of PRO. In Control and grammar, eds. Richard Larson, Sabine Iatridou, Utpal Lahiri, and James Higginbotham, 1–50. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  29. Fukui, Naoki. 1999. An A-over-A perspective on locality. In Linguistics: in search of the human mind, ed. Kazuko Inoue, 109–129. Tokyo: Kaytakusha. Google Scholar
  30. Gallego, Ángel J., and Juan Uriagereka. 2007. Conditions on sub-extraction. In Coreference, modality, and focus, eds. Luis Eguren, and Olga Fernández Soriano, 45–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  31. Gonzalez, Nora. 1990. Unusual inversion in Chilean Spanish. In Studies in relational grammar, eds. Paul Postal, and Brian Joseph, 87–103. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  32. Greenberg, Gerald R. 1983. Another look at the second dative and related subjects. Linguistic Analysis 11: 167–218. Google Scholar
  33. Greenberg, Gerald R. 1989. Dative subjects and the second dative within Slavic. Digest for Philology and Linguistics 32: 45–57. Google Scholar
  34. Greenberg, Gerald R., and Steven Franks. 1991. A parametric approach to dative subjects and the second dative in Russian. Slavic and East European Journal 35: 71–97. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Haeberli, Eric. 2003. Categorial features as the source of EPP and abstract case phenomena. In New perspectives on case theory, eds. Ellen Brandner, and Heike Zinsmeister, 89–126. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  36. Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, events and licensing. PhD Dissertation, MIT. Google Scholar
  37. Harley, Heidi. 2000. Irish, the EPP and PRO. Manuscript, University of Arizona, Tucson. Google Scholar
  38. Holmberg, Andres, and Thorbjörg Hróarsdóttir. 2003. Agreement and movement in Icelandic raising constructions. Lingua 113: 997–1019. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hornstein, Norbert. 2003. On control. In Minimalist syntax, ed. Randall Hendrick, 6–81. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hudson, Richard. 2003. Case agreement, PRO and structure sharing. Research in Language 1: 7–33. Google Scholar
  41. Jackendoff, Ray, and Peter W. Culicover. 2003. The semantic basis of control in English. Language 79: 517–556. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kawasaki, Noriko. 1993. Control and arbitrary interpretation in English. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Google Scholar
  43. Lakoff, George. 1970. Global rules. Language 46: 627–639. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of control: structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  45. Landau, Idan. 2003. Movement out of control. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 471–498. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Landau, Idan. 2004. The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 811–877. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Landau, Idan. 2006. Severing the distribution of PRO from case. Syntax 9: 153–170. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Landau, Idan. 2007. Movement-resistant aspects of control. In New horizons in the analysis of control and raising, eds. William D. Davies, and Stanley Dubinsky, 293–325. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Larson, Richard. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–391. Google Scholar
  50. Lyngfelt, Benjamin. 1999. Optimal control: an OT perspective on the interpretation of PRO in Swedish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 63: 75–104. Google Scholar
  51. Madariaga, Nerea. 2006. Why Russian semi-predicative items always agree. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 14: 45–78. Google Scholar
  52. Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, ed. Sam A. Mchombo, 113–150. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  53. Marantz, Alec. 2000. Case and licensing. In Arguments and case: explaining Burzio’s generalization, ed. Eric Reuland, 11–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  54. McFadden, Thomas. 2004. The position of morphological case in the derivation: a study on the syntax-morphology interface. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Google Scholar
  55. Mulder, René. 1991. An empty head for object control. In Proceedings of the twenty first annual meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, ed. Tim Sherer, 293–307. Amherst: GLSA Publications. Google Scholar
  56. Neidle, Carol. 1982. Case agreement in Russian. In The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. Joan Bresnan, 391–426. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  57. Neidle, Carol Jan. 1988. The role of case in Russian syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  58. Park, Jong-Un, and Myung-Kwan Park. 2004. Intervention effects in experiencer constructions and their implications for the theory of Move and Agree. Studies in Generative Grammar 14: 199–224. Google Scholar
  59. Pesetsky, David. 1991. Zero syntax II: an essay on infinitives. Manuscript, MIT. Google Scholar
  60. Przepiórkowski, Adam, and Alexandr Rosen. 2005. Czech and Polish raising/control with or without structure sharing. Research in Language 3: 33–66. Google Scholar
  61. Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. PhD dissertation, MIT. Google Scholar
  62. Quicoli, Antonio C. 1982. The structure of complementation. Brussels: E. Story-Scientia Gent. Google Scholar
  63. Richards, Norvin. 1998. The principle of minimal compliance. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 599–629. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Richards, Norvin. 1999. Complementizer cliticization in Tagalog and English. In Toronto working papers in linguistics 16, vol. 2: proceedings of the sixth meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association, eds. Carolyne Smallwood, and Catherine Kitto, 297–312. Toronto: University of Toronto. Google Scholar
  65. Richardson, Kylie. 2001. What secondary predicates in Russian tell us about the link between tense, aspect and case. In Syntax of predication, ed. Niina Zhang. Vol. 26 of ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 1–25. Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. Google Scholar
  66. Rouveret, Alain, and Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1980. Specifying reference to the subject: French causatives and conditions on representations. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 97–202. Google Scholar
  67. San-Martin, Itziar. 2004. On subordination and the distribution of PRO. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland. Google Scholar
  68. Schein, Barry. 1982. Nonfinite complements in Russian. In Papers in syntax: MIT working papers in linguistics, vol. 4, eds. Alec Marantz, and Tim Stowell, 217–243. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  69. Sigurðsson, Halldór A. 1991. Icelandic case-marked PRO and the licensing of lexical arguments. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 327–363. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sigurðsson, Halldór A. 2002. To be an oblique subject: Russian vs. Icelandic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 691–724. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sigurðsson, Halldór A. 2003. Case: Abstract vs. morphological. In New perspectives on case theory, eds. Ellen Brandner, and Heike Zinsmeister, 223–268. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  72. Sigurðsson, Halldór A. 2006. PF Is more ‘syntactic’ than often assumed. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 77: 101–128. Google Scholar
  73. Sigurðsson, Halldór A. 2008. The case of PRO. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 403–450. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Starke, Michal. 2001. Move dissolves into merge: a theory of locality. PhD dissertation, University of Geneva. Google Scholar
  75. Tallerman, Maggie. 1998. The uniform case-licensing of subjects in Welsh. The Linguistic Review 15: 69–133. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1979. On complementation in Icelandic. New York: Garland Press. Google Scholar
  77. Williams, Edwin. 1992. Adjunct control. In Control and grammar, eds. Richard Larson, Sabine Iatridou, Utpal Lahiri, and James Higginbotham, 297–322. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  78. Wurmbrand, Susi. 2003. Infinitives: restructuring and clause structure. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Foreign Literatures and LinguisticsBen Gurion UniversityBeer ShevaIsrael

Personalised recommendations