Keio Linguistic Colloquium, Aug. 1, 2021
Toward a Genuine Explanation in Linguistic Theory

Toward a Genuine Explanation for Control Phenomena
Takanori Nakashima (Tohoku University)
takanori.nakashima.c7@tohoku.ac.jp

1. Some Puzzles about Control Theory in LSJ/WCCFL Framework
1.1 Partial Control(1) a.
b.

*John managed to meet at noon. (Exhaustive Control)John arranged to meet at noon. (Partial Control)(2) John arranged [PROJohn+X to win].
••“[(1)] have the sense of [(1a)], not the sense of [(1b)]. … The simplest assumption seems to be that [(1))] derivefrom [(3a)] by deletion of for us, something that happens in other circumstances.”“There are lexical idiosyncrasies, arrange vs. manage, but the basic structure remains intact. No need to change
the notion of copy, no special notion of partial control.”(Chomsky 2020)(3) a.
b.
•

John arranged/managed for us to meet at noon.
John arranged/managed to meet at noon.

Problem I: systematic nature of EC/PC distinction(4) EC-predicates (Implicative; Aspectual; Modal; Evaluative)a. *Yesterday, John managed to solve the problem tomorrow.
b. *Yesterday, John was able to solve the problem tomorrow.
c. *Yesterday, it was smart of John to solve the problem tomorrow.

(Landau 2013: 160)

(5) PC-predicates (Factive; Propositional; Desiderative; Interrogative)a.
Yesterday, John hoped to solve the problem tomorrow.
b.
Yesterday, John wondered how to solve the problem tomorrow.
c.
Today, John regretted having solved the problem last week.
d.
Today John claimed to have solved the problem last week.

(Landau 2013: 160)•

Problem II: semantic plurality(6) a.
b.

John wanted to eat lunch together.
*John wanted to see each other at 6.

(7) a.
b.

The committee ate together at 6.
*The committee saw each other at 6.

•

Null associative morpheme (Madigan 2008; Landau 2015, 2016; Munakata 2021) ?
Ø Problem I: distribution of AM (cf. We have three Johns in this class.)Ø Problem II: semantic plurality(8) John arranged [PRO-AM / John-AM to win].
(9) Boston Celtics honors John Havlicek.
(10) Taro-wa [ashita
rokuji-ni atumaru-yoo] nozondeiru.
Taro-Top tomorrow at-six
gather-Mood hope
‘Taro hopes to gather at 6.’(11) Taro [Taro-AM rokuji- atumaru-yoo] nozondeiru(Munakata 2021: 12)

(12) a.
b.

(13) a.
b.

*Taro-wa [ashitaotagai-no
heya-ni modoru-yoo]nozondeiru.
Taro-Top [tomorrow each.other-Gen room-Dat get.back-Mood] hope
‘Taro hopes to get back to each other’s room’
Taro-wa [ashita
zibun-noheya-ni modoru-yoo]nozondeiru.
Taro-Top [tomorrow each.other-Gen room-Dat get.back-Mood] hope
‘Taro hopes to get back to his room’*Taro-wa otagai-osonkeishiteiru.
Taro-Top each.other-Acc respect‘Taro respects each other.’Taro-tachi-wa otagai-osonkeisiteiru.
Taro-AM-Top each.ohter-Acc respect‘Taro and others respects each other.’

1.2 Split Control••

How is split control accounted for in terms of copy formation?
N.B. The controlled element is syntactically plural.

(14) a.
b.
c.

John proposed to Mary [PROJohn+Mary to meet each other at 6].
John asked Mary [whether PROJohn+Mary to get themselves a new car].
John discussed with Mary [which club PROJohn+Mary to become members of].

(Landau 2013: 172)

2. Partial Control
2.1 X-configurations(15)

repetitions
α …… αProper IM-configuration (e.g., α[Op] … α[θ])IM-configurations

copiesIM-gap (e.g., α[θ] … α[θ])X-configuration (e.g., α[Op] … α)(16) [CP Who[Op] is [TP who[Case]/[arg] criticized who[θ]]]?
(17) Proper IM configurationsa.
α[Case] … α[θ]b.
α[Op] … α[Case](18) Which boy did John meet t and Mary like t?

(identity/*non-identity reading)(Ishii and Goto 2020: 6)(19) Where did Mary vacation t and Bill decide to live t?

(identity/non-identity reading)(Munn 1999: 421)

(20) Tell me what John was thinking today and Mary was thinking yesterday.

(identity/non-identity reading)(Ishii and Goto, p.c.)(21) Ishii and Goto’s Generalization
ATB movement of an element X with [+θ-role, +Case] has only identity reading; ATB movement of an element
X with [+θ-role, -Case], [-θ-role, +Case], or [-θ-role, -Case] has either identity or non-identity reading(adapted from Ishii and Goto 2020: 9)

2

(22)

3
Wh [Op] 3
C3
6 6… wh[θ, Case]… wh[θ, Case](23)

3
Wh [Op] 3
C
3
6 6
…… wh
…… wh

•
•

Without stipulation, nothing makes sure that the two lower copies have an identical variable.
X-configurations provides no clue to identifying these copies. So, suppose that copy relations are transitive(i.e., aRb & bRc → aRc) only if they are IM-configurations.

(24) Where[Op] did [Mary vacation where[-θ]] and [Bill decide to live where[-θ]]?
a.
Wh λx. John meet x and Wh λx. Mary like xb.
Wh λx. John meet x and Wh λy. Mary like y(identity reading)(non-identity reading)(25) Which boy[Op] did [John meet which boy[+θ]] and [Mary like which boy[+θ]]a.
Wh λx. John meet x and λx. Mary like x
b. *Wh λx John meet x and λy. Mary like y(identity reading)(non-identity reading)(26) Trace Conversion (Fox 2002, 2003)a.
Variable Insertion: (Det) Predà (Det) [Pred λz (z = x)]b.
Determiner Replacement: (Det) Predà the [Pred λz (z = x)]
2.2 Deriving EC/PC Distinction•
EC complements are vP, whereas PC complements are CP (Grano 2013).
(27) a.
b.
(28)

The boy tried to open the door.
The boy promised to open the door.

FP
3
DP[θ]
F'
3
F
vP
try
3
DP[θ]
v'
6
to open the door

3

(Fox 2003: 111)

(29)

VP
3
DP[θ]
V'
3
V
CP
promise
3
C
TP
3
DP
T'
3
T
vP
3
DP[θ]
v'
6
to open the door(30) a.
b.

The boy[Case] T the boy[θ] tried [vP the boy[θ] to open the door]
The boy λx. x tried [x to win](31) a.
b.
c.

The boy[Case] T the boy[θ] promised [CP the boy T the boy[θ] to open the door]*The boy λx. x promised [y win]
The boy λx. x promised [x+α win](32) a.
b.

*The rank and file were eager to gather during the strike, but the organizer didn’t dare to gather then.
The rank and file were eager to gather during the strike, but the organizer didn’t dare to.
(Bowers 2008; Landau 2013: 164)(33) a.

The rank and file [Case] T the rank and file [θ] eager [CP the rank and file [TP T [vP the rank and file [θ] togather during the strike]]]
The organizer T the organizer dare [vP e]b.
(34) a.
b.

The rank and file [Case] λx. x eager [CP C [TP T [vP x+α gather during the strike]]]
The organizer λx. x the organizer didn’t dare [vP e]
à The organizer λx. x the organizer didn’t dare [vP x+α gather during the strike]

2.3 Remaining Issues(35) My
poprosili Ivana[PRO
pojti odnomu].
we.Nom askes
Ivan.Acc PRO.DAT to.go alone.DAT‘We asked Ivan to go home.’••(Russian)(Landau 2013: 104)

Possibility (I): unpronounced Case?
Possibility (II): special semantic role?

(36) Scenario: John’s computer has been hacked, but and some secret files have been copied from it by a businesscompetitor. John’s company holds an urgent meeting to decide on the necessary measures. John has no ideathat his own computer was the one that was hacked, but he is determined to punish any careless workers who
failed to protect their computers against malicious attack.
a.
John insists on [PRO being punished].
(de se – F / *de re - T)b.
John insists [that he be punished].
(de se – F / de re - T)(Landau 2013: 32)

4

3. Split Control•

Fujii 2006, 2010 proposes an MTC-account for split control.

(37) John proposed to tJohn+Mary [tJohn+Mary to meet each other at 6].
••

Problem I (pointed by Landau 2013): It invokes unorthodox operations such as breaking up conjunctions inthe syntax
Problem II (pointed by Landau 2013): It does not explain the asymmetry between control and raising.

(38) John proposed/*committed/*seemed to Mary [to help each other at 6].
•••(Landau 2013: 174)

We solve these problems with Fujii’s intuition intact.
John and Mary are introduced as a sequence. There is no operation to break up a conjunction.
The asymmetry between control and raising is essentially reduced to the distinction between IM-configurations
and IM-gaps.

(39) John[θ] proposed to Mary[θ] [<John, Mary>[θ] to meet each other at 6].
(40) John[Case] seemed to Mary[θ] [<John, Mary>[θ] to help each other at 6].
•

Sample derivations(41) Controla.
[TP {John, Mary} T {John, Mary}[θ] to meet each other at 6].
b.
[CP C [TP <John, Mary> T <John, Mary>[θ] to meet each other at 6]].
c.
[CP C [TP John[Case] T John[θ] proposed to Mary[θ, Case] [CP C [TP <John, Mary> to <John, Mary>[θ] meeteach other at 6]]].
(42) Raisinga.
[TP T {John, Mary}[θ] meet each other at 6].
b.
[CP C [TP T <John, Mary>[θ] meet each other at 6]].
c. *[CP C [TP John[Case] T seemed to Mary[θ, Case] [CP C [TP T <John, Mary>[θ] meet each other at 6]]]].
•On extraction out of Sequence(43) a.
b.

Which farm did John live on t, with his family.
*Which farm did John live on t and with his family.

(44) a.
b.

Which farm …… <live on which farm, with his family>*Which farm …… <(&), live on which farm, with his family>(Chomsky 2021)(45) a. *Whoi do you wonder whoj Mary saw [a portrait of tj] and [some photograph of ti]?
b. ??Whoi do you wonder whoj saw [a portrait of ti]?
(Takahashi 1994: 67, fn. 12)(46) ATB (Whoi did Mary see a portrait of ti and some photograph of ti)a.
{a portrait of who, some photograph of who}b.
[CP C [TP Mary see {a portrait of who, some photograph of who}]]c.
[CP who C [TP Mary see {a portrait of who, some photograph of who}]]d.
[CP who C [TP Mary see <a portrait of who, some photograph of who>]](47) Non-ATB-ATB (45a)a.
{a portrait of who, some photograph of who}b.
[CP who C [TP Mary see {a portrait of who, some photograph of who}]]c.
[CP who C [TP Mary see <a portrait of who, some photograph of who>]]d. *[CP who C [TP you wonder [CP who C [TP Mary see <a portrait of who, some photograph of who>]]]]

5

4. Conclusion•••

Partial control is accounted for in terms of variable insertion conditioned by duality of semantics.
Split control is accounted for in terms of Form Sequence.
The proposed analyses are in accordance with the SMT. If they are on the right track, control theory is reduced
to optimally designed operations that yield expressions accessed by language-external systems.

References
Bowers, J. 2008. On reducing control to movement. Syntax 11:125-143.
Chomsky, N. 2020b. Minimalism: Where We Are Now, and Where We Are Going. Lecture at the 161st Conferenceof Linguistic Society of Japan, Nov. 22. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4F9NSVVVuw
Chomsky, N. 2021. Genuine Explanations. Lecture at the 39th meeting of the West Coast Conference on Formal
Linguistics, April 8. Available at https://youtu.be/F6SbPKmVNVQ
Fox, D. 2002. Antecedent-contained deletion and the copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33:63-96.
Fox, D. 2003. On Logical Form. In Minimalist syntax, ed. by R. Hendrick, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Fujii, T. 2006 Some theoretical issues in Japanese control. Doctoral Thesis, University of Maryland.
Fujii, T. 2010. Split control and the principle of minimal distance. In Movement theory of control, eds. N. Hornstein & M.
Polinsky, 211-244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Grano, T. 2013. Control and restructuring. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ishii, T & N. Goto 2020 ATB 解釈に寄与する格の役割 (Role of Case in determining ATB interpretation). A
paper presented at research meeting at Keio University.
Landau, I. 2013. Control in Generative Grammar: A Research Companion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Landau, I. 2015. Two-tired theory of control, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Landau, I. 2016. Agreement at PF: An argument from partial control. Syntax 19:79-109.
Madigan, S. 2008. Control constructions in Korean. Doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware.
Munakata, T. 2021. Copy Unification における Syntactic Mechanism の特性: Chain Properties の再考 (Somecharacter of syntactic mechanism in copy unification: reconsidering chain properties). A paper presented at
research meeting at Keio University.
Munn, A. 1999 On the identity requirement of the ATB extraction. Natural Language Semantics 7: 421-425.
Takahashi, D. 1994. Minimality of movement. Doctral dissertation, The University of Connecticut.

6