Subject vs. Object (backward) control in MTC
This paper examines control constructions in Brazilian Portuguese, Bulgarian, Romanian and Spanish
in the light of the movement theory of Control (MTC) (see (1)) (cf. Horstein 1999 & subsequent work)
1. The aim of the paper is to provide a typology of control constructions within MTC. We show that
the crosslinguistic variation in control poses several challenges for the MTC. A very first challenge is
linked to the distinct syntactic realizations of deficient clauses wrt. tense and phi-features across
languages. We account for this by proposing that subject obligatory control (OC) verbs always
subcategorize deficient TPs (+/ - phi, – tense) while non-obligatory subject control ones either CPs
(phases) (+ phi , + tense) or TPs. A second challenge for MTC is the asymmetry between subject
backward control (BC) in Bulgarian, Romanian and Spanish and object BC in B. Portuguese. We
relate the availability of BC not only to the pro parameter but also to the case of the controller.
2. Subject Control: As illustrated in table 1, control is instantiated differently in the languages under
discussion: gerund complements in English (see Pires 2006), (inflected) infinitives in Brazilian
Portuguese (BP), subjunctive clauses in Romanian and Bulgarian and infinitives in Spanish. Given
that Chomsky (2001) and Stowell (1982) argue that phi-features and tense are inherited by T from C,
how can MTC account of OC constructions in Bulgarian, Romanian and B.Portuguese where phifeatures are overtly realized in the absence of morphological and deitic tense (3b & 4a)? Moreover, if
phi-features in T are incumbent on a phi-complete C (cf. Chomsky 2001), why is the copy allowed to
move above a C phase without being subject to freezing effects? In line with Motapanyane (1995) and
Alboiu (2007), we argue that a phi-complete T does not imply (+ tense). Explicitly, in line with
Landau (2004) we show that in OC tense cannot be realized and it must be dissociated from the phifeatures and case in Bulgarian (5a), Portuguese (3b) and Romanian (4a). Hence, OC verbs always
subcategorize deficient TPs while non-obligatory control ones either CPs or TPs in these languages.
Hence, I propose a phase-based account of subject obligatory control arguing that the lower copy
cannot move across a C phase, but only across a deficient TP (in the absence of freezing effects). The
strongest argument for MTC is the availability of Backward control (BC) whereby the controlee is
structurally superior to the controller, as Δi trata [leer Juani el libro]. BC has been already verified in a
variety of languages: one finds Backward Subject Control (BSC) & Backward Object Control (BOC):
3. (Backward) Object Control (BOC): There is an asymmetry between BSC and BOC: Bulgarian,
Romanian and Spanish have BSC but not BOC while B. Portuguese shows the opposite pattern.
This asymmetry seems to be triggered by subject/object pro parameter (cf. Farrell 1995, AAIM 2010):
i. Bulg., Romanian & Spanish have subject pro – hence allow subject BSC (4),(5)&(6), lack object pro
– hence disallow BOC; ii. B. Portuguese partially lacks subject pro – disallows BSC (3), extensively
uses object pro (see 9) – allows BOC. Nevertheless, Postdam (2006) shows that Malagasy lacks object
pro but permits BOC. Hence, we argue that BOC is linked to the case realization of the controlee and
controller. Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou, Iordachioaia & Marchis (AAIM) (2010) show that in the
case of Free Relatives Clauses in Romanian, the less marked case (nom) cannot play the role of the
Acc: in (8) “pe” requires Acc and “arrive” requires Nom; if “pe” is deleted, the pure Nom form “cine”
cannot override the Acc required by “have prized”. Like in Free Relative Clause, BOC is licit when
there is not case-mismatch between the controlee copy and the overt controller in the embedded clause
(cf. AAIM 2010). This is supported by BP where the accusative case is disappearing in the colloquial
language being replaced by the nominative case (see (9)). We hence link BOC in B. Portuguese both
to object pro (cf. Farrell 1990) and the case-matching between the covert object controlee and the
overt subject controller. Technically, we do not assume that in BP the covert object controlee is an
object pro: i. First, BP does not allow that an overt object pronoun co-occurs with its associate in the
embedded or matrix clause (see 7b). ii. Second, Principle C violations would arise with an object pro
analysis of BOC (see Potsdam 2006). Crucially, we argue that the covert copy in BOC belongs to a
single nominative case A-chain. But why does the movement of copy is not subject to freezing
effects? In line with Carstens (2001), we argue that like in Bantu languages phi-completeness does not
always guarantee case deletion. Analogical to Landau (2004), we assume that the case of the
embedded T is unvalued: the copy in BOC inherits its case from the matrix T through an A movement.
The defective nature of the embedded T (see also Raposo 1987) leads to multiple agree of the copy
first with the infinitive T for number and person and then Agree and (covert/overt) movement to the
matrix clause to check the structural case and theta-role valuation. The ungrammaticality of “mandar”
“order” with non-agentive themes and idioms in BP shows that this verb places selectional restrictions
on the overt theme regardless of its syntactic position.
(1)
[TP Bill [vP Bill tried [IP Bill to [vP Bill cut the line]]]]
(2)
a.
b.
Mary tries (*today) riding (*Mary) her horse on the beach (*tomorrow).
Mary remembers having done her homework yesterday.
(3)
a.
Nós lembramos agora não (*nós) ter(mos) feito a tarefa ontem. B. Portuguese
We remember-1pl now not we having-1pl done the homework yesterday.
Ele aprendem a (*eles) não falarem alto à mesa *ontem.
They learned to they not talk-3pl
loud at table yesterday.
b.
(4)
a.
b.
(5)
a.
b.
(6)
a.
b.
Subject Control
English
(Maria) a învăţat (*ca) să călărească (Maria) (*mâine) (Maria).
Maria learned *compl. subj ride-3sg (Mary) *tomorrow (Mary).
(Maria) a vrut (ca) să călărească (Maria) (mâine) (Maria).
Mary has wanted that subj ride-3sg Mary tomorrow.
(Ivan) se
John reflex.
(Maria) e
Mary has
Romanian
nautSi
da sviri
(Ivan) na
kitara (Ivan) *utre. Bulg.
learned-3sg subj play-3sg John to
guitar John tomorrow
poiskala
da
jazdi (Maria)
utre (Maria).
wanted
subj
ride-3sg Mary
tomorrow Mary
(María) aprendió
Maria learned
(María) quiere
Mary
wants
cabalgar
ride-inf
cabalgar
ride.inf.
(María) (*mañana)
(María).
Mary *tomorrow Mary.
(María) mañana
(María).
Mary
tomorrow
Mary.
Spanish
Table 1: A typology of control in English, B- Portuguese, Romanian, Bulgarian and Spanish:
Deficient clauses
morph.phi features Tense Matrix verb
English deficient gerund
OC “try”
(2a)
English clausal gerund
+
non-OC “remember” (2b)
Portuguese inflected infinitive
+/+
non-OC “remember” (3a)
Portuguese (inflected) infinitive
+
OC “learn”
(3b)
Romanian subjunctive
+
OC “learn”
(4a)
Romanian subjunctive
+
+
non-OC “want”
(4b)
Bulgarian subjunctive
+
OC “learn”
(5a)
Bulgarian subjunctive
+
+
non-OC “want”
(5b)
Spanish infinitive
OC “try”
(6a)
Spanish infinitive
+
non-OC “want”
(6b)
(7)
a.(Maria) li-a obligat
pe Ioni/
[*Ion (Maria) să zâmbească (Maria)]. Romanian
Maria cl.acc-has obligated. PE John.acc/ John.nom. Maria subj. smile.3s Maria
b. Maria mandou-os
[ *eles limpar-*em a casa].
Brazilian Portuguese (BP)
Maria ordered-them.acc they clean-3pl the house
c. Maria mandou [eles limpar(em) a casa].
Backward object control
Maria ordered they clean-3pl the house
(8)
Au premiat
*(pe) [cine
Have prize-given PE.acc who.nom
(9)
a ajuns primul].
has arrived first
(AAIM 2010)
Eu o
conheci/ conheci ele / conheci Ø numa festa.
I him.acc meet / meet
he.nom/ meet Ø in a party.
B. Portuguese
(Farrell 1990: 328)