Open Access

Szymon Słodowicz

• Complement control is a well-known phenomenon in Turkish linguistics, and different proposals for analysing it are available. The majority of these treat control as a structural phenomenon, cf. Kerslake (1987), Özsoy (1987; 2001) and Kural (1998). In sum, control is predicted only in sentences with complement clauses formed with the suffixes -mEk and -mE, which can be case-marked, but the appearance of a possessive marker definitely precludes control. As far as the control relations are concerned, the research so far has attested the classical cases of subject and object control. In addition to that, variable control is discussed by Taylan (1996). The status of the controlled element is discussed by Bozşahin (in press), which concludes that the syntactic subject is appointed by this function in Turkish. In this paper I will argue that the currently established approach to control is insufficient. The shortcomings of a strictly configurational approach become clear if a broader perspective on control is adopted. I follow the approach to control outlined by Stiebels (this volume), and show that two types of control must be distinguished. Inherent control is encoded in the lexical entry of the verb. Verbs which show inherent control either select only control-inducing structures or trigger control in environments not requiring control. Structural control, on the other hand, arises through the use of a control-inducing structure with a verb which does not inherently require control. Structural control verbs show control only with control-inducing structures. No control occurs with such verbs in other configurations. The data discussed in this paper will show that control is a ‘mixed’ phenomenon, since it may arise structurally or semantically. Its explanation must therefore consider the semantics of the relevant matrix verbs and the syntactic properties of complement clauses on an equal basis.