ZASPiL 47 = Studies in complement control
Refine
Year of publication
- 2007 (6)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (6)
Language
- English (6)
Has Fulltext
- yes (6)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (6)
Keywords
- Deutsch (3)
- Ergänzung <Linguistik> (2)
- Infinitkonstruktion (2)
- Kontrolle <Linguistik> (2)
- Koreanisch (2)
- Nebensatz (2)
- Prädikat (2)
- Referenzidentität (2)
- Transitivität (2)
- Valenz <Linguistik> (2)
In this article, I will present a survey of control structures in Korean. The survey is based on a sample of seventy SOA-argument-taking predicates, which are classified with respect to their complementation patterns and control properties. As a result, Korean is characterized as a language in which semantically determined control is predominant, whereas constructionally induced control is only marginal. In the discussion of the sample, I will show that there are two major classes of verbs exhibiting semantic control: the first class consists of matrix verbs such as hwuhoyhata 'regret' or kangyohata 'force', which require obligatory coreference between a matrix argument and the embedded subject due to their lexical meaning. The verbs of the second class are utterance verbs such as malhata 'tell', which select clauses headed by the quotative complementizer ko. With these verbs, subject, object, or split control arises if specific modal suffixes are attached to the verb heading the complement clause. In the second part of the paper, I will provide a lexical analysis of control in Korean, which adopts the Principle of Controller Choice proposed by Farkas (1988) as well as additional constraints which have to be assumed independently.
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.
In this paper, I examine two object control constructions in Korean which differ only in the surface word order: in one of the constructions, the control complement follows the controller, but in the other, precedes it. I argue that the contrast between these constructions cannot be attributed to scrambling. The difference between these constructions can only be captured if one of them is analyzed as OC, and the other as instantiating NOC. Section 2 presents the relevant constructions and their earlier analyses available in the literature; section 3 presents a detailed discussion of differences between the two object control constructions. My proposal for analyzing these constructions is presented in section 4. Section 5 introduces two outstanding questions related to the proposed structures: the status of scrambling in Korean and the analysis of the inverse control construction. Conclusions and general discussion follow in section 6.
It is the aim of this paper to evaluate the various types of sentential complementation available in terms of complement control cross-linguistically. I will propose a lexical classification of control classes on the basis of the instantiated subordination patterns. I want to focus on an important distinction, namely that of structural vs. inherent control. Structural control is found with predicates that select a clausal complement whose structure requires argument identification and thus 'induces' control. Infinitival complements are prototypical cases for this kind of control because in most languages infinitival complements can only 'survive' in structures of control or raising. The interesting question is which predicates license structural control and which cross-linguistic differences emerge between potential licensors. Inherent control is found with predicates that require control readings independent of the instantiated structure of sentential complementation (e.g. a directive predicate such as zwingen 'force'). In addition, I will recapitulate and add arguments for the dual lexical-syntactic nature of complement control.
This questionnaire focuses on control structures that are instantiated by predicates that take a state of affairs (SOA) argument. Noonan (1985) has called these predicates 'complement-taking predicates'; I will use the notion of SOAAtaking predicates (SOAA = state of affairs argument).
Prototypically, complement control is instantiated by certain classes of verbs; however, adjectives (be eager to) and nouns (e.g. nominalizations such as promise) may function as control predicates as well. 'Control' refers to the pattern of argument identification between an argument of the SOAA-taking predicate and an argument of the SOAA-head. In the literature the notion of 'equi deletion' or 'equi-NP deletion' has been used (following Rosenbaum 1967), which refers to structures in which an overt argument of the matrix predicate is identified with a covert argument of the embedded predicate. This questionnaire aims at a cross-linguistic application of the notion of control and thus uses a semantic definition of complement control. It extends the notion of control to other patterns of referential dependency between arguments of a SOAA-taking predicate and of the embedded predicate.
In what follows, I first briefly review Perlmutter (1968, 1970), in which it is argued that aspectual verbs are ambiguous between control and raising. I suggest that while the argument for the raising analysis is solid, the arguments supporting the control analysis of aspectual verbs are less so. As an alternative hypothesis to consider, I introduce the structural ambiguity hypothesis. In Section 3, I review three recent analyses of control and raising. Although there are important differences among them, they all share the basic assumption that the control/raising distinction is due to differences in selectional restrictions that the lexical items impose. Under such an assumption, the lexical ambiguity hypothesis is the only available option. In Section 4, I present evidence for the structural ambiguity hypothesis from studies concerning aspectual verbs in languages from four distinct families, German (Wurmbrand 2001), Japanese (Fukuda 2006), Romance languages (Cinque 2003), and Basque (Arregi Molina-Azaola 2004). These data strongly suggest that across languages aspectual verbs can appear in two different syntactic positions, either below or above vP, or the projection with which an external argument is introduced (Kratzer 1994, 1996, Chomsky 1995). Given these findings, I argue that it is the aspectual verbs' position with respect to vP which creates the control/raising ambiguity. When an aspectual verb appears in a position that is lower than vP, an external argument takes scope over the aspectual verb. Thus, it is interpreted as control. When an aspectual verb appears in a position that is higher than vP, on the other hand, it is the aspectual verb that takes scope over an entire vP, including the external argument. Thus, it is interpreted as raising. In section 5, I extend the scope of this study to include a discussion of want-type verbs in Indonesian, as analyzed in Polinsky & Potsdam (2006). Polinsky & Potsdam argue that the Indonesian want-type verbs must be raising in at least certain cases where they allow a rather peculiar interpretation. Although they assume that there are also control counterparts of the want-type verbs, I argue that applying the proposed analysis to the want-type verbs does away with the need for stipulating two distinct lexical entries for these verbs. Section 6 concludes the paper.