ELECTIVE FINAL TAKE HOME TEST/PAPER

SECTION A: 6 Comprehension Questions (30 points)

1. Some studies in the analysis of Control have tried to undermine the difference between
Control and Raising structures, by trying to reduce Control to Raising. For example, Hornstein
(1999) provides an alternative to the classical theory of control, proposing to analyse it as a case
of NP/DP movement. In his view, the controller which surfaces in the matrix clause has moved
from the lower infinitival clause where it was originally projected, stopping to the next theta-
position of the main clause (Spec, VP) and finally to the case position of the matrix (Spec, IP).
According to this assumption, the same DP actually bears two (external argument) theta-roles
(the one of the complement verb and the one of the verb in the matrix). Thus, the chain in (1a)
contains two theta roles of the type (DP Agent, t Agent):

(1) a. Harry tried [ t to write].

b. Harry seemed [ t to be crying].

Assuming a movement theory of control (i.e., control reduced to raising), the only difference
between control and raising that still holds is the number of theta roles each construction
has/each DP has in each construction: the controller DP ends up bearing two theta roles in
control constructions (1a), but only one in raising (1b) as previously assumed.

Q: What basic principle of grammar (discussed at the course) does this proposal/theory
disregard (and why)?

2. Study the examples below carefully and account for the grammaticality judgements
represented via the indices in bold provided on the nominal and pronominal expressions.
Please make your answers as clear as possible (but nonetheless concise!). For each example,
make reference to the notion of Local Domain and the Principle of Binding Theory (A or B)
which is responsible for accounting for each sentence.

(2) a. Johni believes himj/*i to be very smart.

b. Johni believes himselfi/*j to be very smart.
c. Johni believes Tomj to admire himselfj/*i

3. Study the examples below carefully. Discuss 1) what they have in common and in what
respects they are different; 2) how the b) example is relevant for the postulation of the
empty category PRO (i.e., why it was presumed that we need to postulate the existence of
this empty category in the subject position of infinitive complements)

(3) a. John runs in the morning.

b. John always wants [PRO to run in the morning.]
4. Study carefully the two examples below. What is the difference between them? (Focus on
the type of embedded predicate, which has direct bearing on the interpretation of the
empty embedded subject (as suggested by the indices) & the type of (Obligatory) Control).

(4) a. Johni wants [PROi/*j to write poems]

b. Johni wants [PROi+ to convene at 6]

5. Of the two examples below, which one is/can be ambiguous between two readings and
which one can have only one of the two readings? Mention/Explain what the two readings
are and argument your answer!
Hint: lecture 4

(5) a. I heard him singing in the shower.

b. They caught him singing in the shower.

6. Explain the difference between the two examples below (please refer to whether there is
a Control relation and what type, the interpretation of the null subject of the non-finite
embedded clause, use brackets to delineate the embedded domain)

(6) a. I recommend you to buy this book.

b. They strongly recommend buying this book.

B. Research requirement (20 points)

For proper examples, please follow the requirements and specifications in the INFO document!
1. Provide relevant examples of anaphors and pronominal elements and briefly discuss
their reference properties.

2. Does the language have null subjects? In finite (i.e., pro) or in non-finite contexts? (
Does the language exhibit a [+ finite] vs. [-finite] opposition?) Discuss and illustrate.

3. Does the language exhibit the Control vs Raising distinction? (with relevant triggers).
Discuss and illustrate.

4. Focus on EC verbs (aspectual, modal, implicative) vs PC verbs (volitional). Is there any

difference between the complement clauses selected by the former and the latter in terms of
a) the (type and) interpretation of the embedded subjecti and b) the temporal properties of
the complementii?

i
Is this a PRO (i.e., no disjoint overt subject possible) or are disjoint embedded subjects possible?
ii
Are disjoint adverbials possible or not? Is the complement temporally anaphoric or temporally free?