Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
2
Infinitives Infinitives
3. Control: Infinitives with a silent pronoun subject (PRO) Unlike raising verbs, which allow any kind of subject that the verb in the IP
complement allows, control verbs only allow DP arguments with which they are
With some infinitives we have grounds for assuming that the specifier of to is occupied by a
semantically compatible. Thus, control verbs fail tests like (4) and (5): We dont find
silent pronoun called PRO which is interpreted as being identical to (technical term: is
parts of idioms functioning as controllers of PRO because outside the idiom they either
controlled by) an argument of the verb in the main clause:
make no sense or do not have an idiomatic interpretation:
(11) Subject control:
(15) a. *Considerable umbragei tried PROi to be taken at his behaviour.
a. IP
b. *The rioti act managed PROi to be read to those losers.
I
c. *I asked the riot acti PROi to be read to them.
VP
If the inner IP has an expletive subject, it can be moved into the main clause with
V
raising verbs, but not with control verbs, since expletives dont have the right semantics
IP
to appear as arguments of control verbs:
I
(16) a. There is someone waiting. (expletive there)
VP
b. Raising: Therei seems [ti to be someone waiting].
DPi I DP V DP I
c. Subject control: *Therei managed [PROi to be someone waiting].
Elvis ti decided PROi to tPRO leave the building
d. Object control: *I persuaded therei [PROi to be someone waiting].
(17) a. It is raining . (expletive it)
b. Paraphrase of (a): Elvis has decided that he should leave the building
b. Raising: Iti seemed [ti to be raining].
c. Other such verbs: try, hope, manage, opt, aspire, fail, need, pretend
c. Subject control: *Iti managed [PROi to be raining].
(12) Object control:
d. Object control: *I persuaded iti [PROi to be raining].
a. IP
I
3.2. Why linguists believe that PRO exists
VP
V Parallels like (18) show that subordinate clauses in control sentences are interpreted as if
IP they have an understood/implicit subject. By assuming PRO, we are maximising the
I parallels between syntax and semantics.
VP (18) a. I promised PRO to leave = I promised that I would leave
DPk I DP V DP DP I b. I am sorry PRO to have put you out = I am sorry that I have put you out
They tk advised Elvisi PROi to tPRO leave the building Other evidence comes from binding (=the area of grammar dealing with reflexive
pronouns). Reflexives require an antecedent in the same IP, cf. (19)a). If PRO exists, we
b. Interpretation of (a): They advised Elvis that he should leave the building can explain why it is possible to have reflexives in an IP where there is no other antecedent
c. Other such verbs: tell, tempt, force, persuade, order, ask, instruct in the clause, cf. (19)b-d).
We call decide a subject control verb since its subject controls (i.e. provides the (19) a. We want [IP Elvisi to trust himselfi/*ourselves]
interpretation for) PRO. Advise is an object control verb, because its object controls PRO. b. Theyi promised him [IPPROi to trust themselvesi/*himself]
c. Wei want [IP PROi to help ourselvesi/*himself/*yourselves]
3.1. How control and raising verbs differ d. They asked himi [IPPROi to trust himselfi/*themselves]
Both types of verbs have in common that the main clause contains a DP which is In (20), the reflexives act as if they are bound to a generic pronoun (one). If we assume a
interpreted as an argument of a verb in the subordinate IP, e.g. Mary is interpreted as the PRO here, this receives an explanation.1
agent of solve in the following sentences: (20) [PRO to love yourself/oneself/*herself/*themselves/*yourselves/*ourselves] is hard
(13) a. Raising: Maryi seemed [IP ti to solve the problem].
3.3. Miscellaneous comments on PRO
b. Subj. control: Maryi tried [IP PROi to solve the problem].
c. Obj. control: I asked Maryi [IP PROi to solve the problem]. Normally, if a control verb has an object, the object will control PRO. This suggests that
The difference is that, while raising verbs dont take DP arguments, control verbs clearly PRO is controlled by the nearest DP in the main clause. An exceptional case is promise:
do. How we know this: Hei promised them PROi to leave early. Sentences of this type are indeed exceptional:
Very often, the fact that the individual expressed by the DP in question has two They arent possible to all speakers and cause problems for children learning languages.
thematic roles can be detected intuitively: PRO doesnt need case, hence it can occupy the specifier of an IP headed by to.
(14) a. Mary hoped PRO to study: Mary is both experiencer (of hope) and agent (of study)
b. I persuaded Mary PRO to leave: She is both persuaded and the one who will leave.
The same point can be made using paraphrases like those in (11)b)/(12)b): Here we see
that Elvis is an argument of decide/advise, but there is also a pronoun referring to Elvis
1
which is argument of leave. In (11)a)/(12)a), PRO functions like he in (11)b)/(12)b). Here PRO has an arbitrary interpretation, i.e. is not controlled. More examples: PRO to err
is human; Thats hard PRO to see; I dont know whether PRO to go; PRO surfing is fun.
3 4
Infinitives Infinitives
4. Exceptional Case Marking (ECM) (26) [CP [C For] [IP him to go there] would be silly
An indication that for assigns case here:
The third type of infinitive is one with exceptional case marking (ECM):
(27) For them to go to the slaughterhouse would be inadvisable.
(21) IP
PRO to go to the slaughterhouse would be inadvisable.
I'
*Them to go to the slaughterhouse would be inadvisable.
VP
V
IP A. Decide whether the following sentences involve raising, control or ECM. Some verbs
can be used in more than one way.
I' a. want: 1. I want it to rain. 2. I want to go. 3. *There wants to someone smoking here.
VP b. need: 1. I need it to rain. 2. I need to go. 3. It needs to rain heavily.
DP I DP V DP I c. cease: There ceased to be people interested in the job.
shek tk believed himi to ti have dishonest motives d. agree: He agreed to stop ruining everyones life.
B. Draw trees for the following.
Here him in the lower spec,IP will be shown not to be an argument of the verb believe,
1. The problem seems to have been fogotten. 2. What did he appear to forget?
although it receives case from it. (such phrases are exceptionally case marked DPs).
3. She knew him to have been arrested by that time.
Other ECM verbs: expect, know, prove, assume, believe, need, want, think, show, consider.
5 6