A Derivational Theory of Clause Type and the Unity of Movement
David Pesetsky (MIT)Handout 2: "Raising, Control and the Unity of Movement "Part 2: The derivational nature of infinitivization•

Claim: Infinitival clauses are the result of Kinyalolo Dissimilation, and are derivationallyproduced from clauses originally built as full finite CPs.

(5) Nominal vs. non-nominal complements differ in case needs
a. We are sure [that the world is round].
We are sure *(of) the world's roundness.
b. my proof [that the world is round]my proof *(of) the world's roundness
The challenge to class 1 from Icelandic(6)

1. Challenges concerning the source of nominative case
The standard case-theory + agreement theory of NOM(1) Flavors of T: lexical choice
T may come from the lexicon (i) with or (ii) without a set of φ-features that trigger subject
agreement and NOM case. A finite clause in a language like English results from choice (i),and an infinitival clause reflects choice (ii). Finiteness is a matter of lexical choice.

(7)(2) Agree-based NOM
Agreement with T assigns/values NOM.

•

(3) Case Filter
DP must be licensed by Case assignment (variant: by Case valuation).

The embedded NOM object in (7) is unexpected in theories of case and nominal licensing thathave (1), (2), and (3) as tenets.

•"... [I]f tensed inflection with agreement is the source of NOM case on the objects of DAT
subject verbs, we would expect the object to lose its NOM case in an infinitive, because
infinitive inflection does not assign NOM. Instead [...], such DAT subject/NOM object verbs stilltake a NOM object in infinitival constructions although there is no element around to assign
NOM case." (Marantz 1991 "Case and Licensing", 18-19)(4) General predictions of the standard theory of NOM and the Case Filter ...
a. Class 1: ... concerning presence or absence of agreement with T
A nominal whose only possible source of licensing is φ-feature agreement with T will
suffer one of the following fates if T cannot enter into an agreement relation with it:
1. salvation by Movement: it moves to a position where it is licensed by some otherelement (e.g. an ACC-licenser, or the agreeing T of a higher clause); or
2. salvation by External Merge: some later-merged element licenses it in situ; or
3. no salvation: assign star if neither of these possibilities is realized.
•

Rephrasing the prediction: a nominal specifier of TP without subject agreement
obligatorily undergoes Raising to Subject (R1) or Raising to Object/Spec,VP (R2) (ignoring
English for-infinitives for now).
b. Class 2: ... concerning non-nominals
If the properties summarized under "Rephrasing" above are part of the same story as thestory that motivated case theory for complements (e.g. (5)), the obligatoriness of R1 andR2 should not be detected with non-nominals .

A less well-known challenge to class 2 predictions(8) The case needs of nominal subjects in the standard theory...

handout 2/page 2(9) ... are mirrored by CP subjects ...
baseline: [That the world is round] is a tragedy.

But then what yields the standard case-theory generalizations concerning nominal vs. nonnominal complements?
•

Claim: The Icelandic challenge shows us that "NOM is assigned by φ-agreement" is wrong,since we see NOM where there is no φ-agreement. Instead the right logic is "Agreement is
assigned by NOM" (Bobaljik 2008).

•

But then what yields the correlation between infinitive~finite and movement~non-movementfrom subject position in (8)?

(but perhaps CP subjects are actually nominal?)(10)

Marantz makes a proposal for R1 involving avoidance of satisfying EPP on T with an
expletive (forcing movement) — but this does not extend to the R2 and no-movement-at-allparts of the paradigm.

... and mirrored by predicate-inversion (AP) subjects ...
baseline: Even more important than linguistics is the fate of the planet.

2. An alternative, derivational approach to the NOM challenges
Overview of the approach•(11)... and mirrored by fronted locatives in Locative Inversion ...
baseline: In this room are found the finest examples of Athenian sculpture.

At least one of the tenets of standard case theory from section 1 must be wrong:(1) Whether a clause is finite or infinitival is a matter of lexical choice.
(2) NOM is assigned under φ-featural agreement with T.
(3) Nominals must be case-licensed.

Proposal: challenge tenet (1), instead of (2) or (3).

(12) ... and mirrored by expletive subjects ...
baseline: There is a riot in progress

In a nutshell:• In languages like English, the non-finiteness of embedded clauses in R1 and R2 constructions
is a consequence, not a trigger of the raising of the embedded subject (as discussed in the firsthandout).
• Whether a clause is finite or infinitival is not a matter of chosing finite or non-finite T fromthe lexicon, but is derivationally determined.
• All clauses begin their derivational lives as full finite CPs. Non-finite clauses reflect
reduction of T or C or both …
• ...as a consequence of an operation of Kinyalolo Dissimilation that produces an infinitive
when the subject moves from Spec,TP to Spec,CP (in these examples, as a first step of
successive-cyclic A-movement).
•

The "Case and Licensing" response to the Icelandic challenge•

Claim: Nominals have no need for licensing.

Relevance to NOM challenges:
Class 2 (infinitive) challenges:o Subjects of clauses that end up infinitival have no special case-theoretic problem. The
starred examples in paradigms (8)-(12) have nothing to do with case theory — but instead
are instances of illegal infinitivization when its structural description is not met: thesubject didn't move anywhere.

handout 2/page 3•

Class 1 (Icelandic) challenges: Because every clause starts as a full and finite CP, every
clause starts its life endowed with a T that can assign NOM.
o The embedded clause in (7) is infinitival because its quirky subject underwent R2 raising
via Spec,CP, triggering reducton (here of both T and C, to be discussed eventually)..
o The NOM object in (7) is licensed and bears NOM because its clause had a T that agreed
with it before reduction took place. NOM here is a memory of the clause's past life as afull finite CP with unreduced T.

Some presuppositions of the "lexicalist" standard theory
Standard lexicalist view of the past four decades (Kiparsky & Kiparsky 1970, Bresnan 1972)• The finiteness of a clause and presence/absence of C is a result of the lexical items freely
chosen to participate in the derivation that built that clause (Lexical Array).
• For example: if [±Past] and C do not form part of the Lexical Array chosen to build aparticular clause, the result will be a reduced infinitive. Conversely, if [±Past] and C arechosen, the result will be a full finite CP.
How the behavior of R1 and R2 looks from the standard lexicalist perspective• Given that the derivation has built an infinitive, how does the system solve the problems that
follow from having chosen to build an infinitive?
• For example: The subject of an English infinitive has a licensing problem that can be solved(only) if an R1 or R2 probe successfully locates it, so that that movement and case-licensing
becomes possible. This is possible only across a reduced infinitival clause boundary but not
across an unreduced one, due to [various proposals].

3. Pedagogical pause: English R2 constructions do involve raising of theembedded subject into the higher VP
The basic puzzle of English (and Icelandic) R2(15)

postverbal element in R2 behaves like embedded-clause subject ...
Mary judged there to be a good reason for the meeting.

(16) ... but shares properties with higher-clause direct objects
a. Mary believed meACC to have solved the problem.
b. Suei proved herselfi / her*i to be a capable leader.
In favor of movement into the higher verbal domain (vs. in-situ ECM)
(17) R2 subject precedes higher-clause low-VP adverbs(Postal (1974, 146-7)
a. Somebody found Germany recently to have been relatively justified in the [1915]
Lusitania sinking.
(Postal)b. Sue believes Bill with all her heart to be the best candidate.
c. Mary proved Sue conclusively to have committed the crime.
(18)

Analysis (on conventional assumptions about infinitives)(19)

R2 subject may precede the particle of a higher-clause Verb-Particle construction
a. They made these people out [ to be great writers].
'They intentionally gave the impression that these people are great writers.'

An alternative "derivationalist" view
• Abandon the assumption that infinitives and reduced clauses are "born, not made".
• Movement of the embedded subject precedes the differentiation of the embedded clause into
finite vs. non-finite — and triggers its reduction to an infinitive.

Crucial background for the alternative view
(13)

Full CP hypothesis
Every embedded clause is built by Merge as a full finite CP, and may be reduced to a lessthan-full clause only as a consequence of later derivational processes.

(14)

Nature of English toa. an instance of T, as in most standard theories …
b. … whose tense and agreement features have been removed (affecting its exponence)handout 2/page 4
b. They made it out [ to be raining] when it was just drizzling.
'They intentionally induced us to believe that it was raining, when …'(20) R2 subject c-commands low elements in the higher clause (Lasnik & Saito 1991)
Principle C:
a. John believes that hei is a genius even more fervently than Bobi's mother does.
b. *John believes himi to be a genius even more fervently than Bobi's mother does.
Principle A:c. The DA proved the defendantsi to be guilty during each otheri's trials.
d. *The DA proved [that the defendants were guilty] during each other's trials.
•

(21)

(24)

Location of criterial R2 probes in English
Present on a subset of active instances of V (but not passive or unaccusative verbs, and
not A or N.
(We assume that non-criterial R2 probes are present on other instances of V at least, andprobably A and N as well.)•Raising-to-Subject (R1)
Mary appears to have solved the problem.

4. An argument for infinitivization as a process:no need for case licensing, yet patterns with nominals

Criterial vs. non-criterial specifiers of the various φ-probes relevant to R1 snd R2
o C:
non-criterial in R1 and R2 constructions
o higher V: criterial for R2 predicates (an "R2 probe")
non-criterial for R1 predicates (an "R1 probe")
o higher v: non-criterial and relevant for R1(C and v bear Ā-probes)

If accusative case and binding conditions care about phase-mate status, R2 constructions
differ from embedded finite clauses as required.

If R2 involves movement, it is a twin of R1, for which movement is not in doubt:

•

(23)

In (8a-b) [repeated below], the embedded subject has moved to Spec,VP in response to an R2
and R1 probe, respectively — but in (8c-f) it has remained in the embedded clause, so
infinitivization cannot happen (or else moved to non-criterial Spec,VP, triggering
infinitivization, but illegally remained there — a parse we will ignore in what follows).

(8) [repeated]

Claims:
Logic: The embedded clause ends up as an infinitive only if its subject raises by A-movement
to Spec,CP — on its way out of the clause, in Raising constructions. This is the same "onlywhen triggered" logic that we already saw in the first handout when discussing Zulu
hyperraising and related phenomena.
Irrelevant factors: Infinitivization triggered by A-movement to Spec,CP takes place
independent of the syntactic category and case needs (or lack thereof) of the mover.

(22)

Working assumptions about movement:(i) Boring idea about probes and EPP:An X-probe on α with an EPP property triggers movement of the closest XP, forming
Spec,αP.
(ii) Relevance of criteriality (Rizzi, passim.):
An X-probe on α with an EPP property may determine the specifier that it creates tobe criterial or non-criterial. If criterial, the specifier may not move further, even if
found by a higher probe. If non-criterial, the specifier must move further, i.e. may notremain in that position.

Case and the subject of infinitives:• On a Dissimilation approach to infinitivization and clause size, the subject of an embedded
infinitive has no case-licensing problem — since its clause was a full finite CP until
dissimilatory operations applied.
Dissimilation only when triggered:• Untriggered infinitivization should yield unacceptability...
•... which is why phrases that seem to have no case needs as complements show the same
paradigm as nominals when the subject position of infinitives vs. finite clauses is at issue: theparadigms in (9)-(12).

handout 2/page 5

5. Infinitivization as a process — a derivational opacity argument
no visible case licenser yet nominals are ok (the Kayne paradigm)(26)

Derivational opacity and case-licensing••••

b. l'homme que je croyais êtrearrivé...
the.man that I believed AUX.INF arrived'the man that I believed to have arrived...'A moved nominal subject of a subordinate clause that has been infinitivized was assigned
NOM and case-licensed in that subordinate clause ...
... but its case-licenser is not present on the surface, an instance of derivational opacity.
Standard instances of R1 and R2 raise the nominal to a position where it receives a secondcase (more on this below), and thus are equally compatible with the familiar proposal that thenominal never was case-licensed in the embedded clause.
A legal configuration in which raising triggers infinitivization but does not target a new caseposition, however, will provide an argument for the derivational opacity of NOM assignment
posited here.

French believe-class verbs (Kayne 1980)
a. *Je croyais cet homme êtrearrivé.
I believed this man
AUX.INF arrived'I believed this man to have arrived.'

c. %Marie a longtemps été crue
avoir résolu ce problème.
Marie AUX long.time been believe.FEM have solved this problem(also 'consider', 'suppose', 'say', 'guess'...; Pollock 1984)(27)

Stipulation
The verbs that show the paradigm of (25) and (26) lack a criterial R2 probe.

Situation (b) instantiated:
Setup: Configuration in which the subject σ of an embedded clause may not undergo R2
movement, either because:(a) no-criterial φ-probe on the higher V: the R2 φ-probe on V of the higher clause that
could attract σ and permit it to remain in Spec,VP is not criterial or does not exist, or(b) minimality problem: an intervening nominal blocks contact between a φ-probe on V ofthe higher clause and σ.

(28)
a.
b.
c.

From a Kinyalolo Dissimilation perspective...
... the embedded clause in situations (a) and (b) may be infinitival only if its subject is raisedout of its clause and does not end up remaining in Spec,VP.
o In situation (a), the subject must be attracted by some criterial probe after (or insteadof) a φ-probe on V.
o In situation (b), the extractor could only be an Ā-probe, since the same Minimality
considerations that would block the φ-probe R2 should block R1.

The puzzle for a derivationalist theory: Why did the embedded clause become an infinitive?

•

Premise: the infinitival clause in (28b) is non-finite from the beginning.

From a Lexicalist perspective ...
... in which infinitives are born rather than made, situations (a) and (b) would both look
like additional puzzles of case theory — case-licensing of the embedded subject only if
it undergoes Ā-movement or R1.

•

Easy examples: In (28a), the embedded subject needs case-licensing — and cannot receive
it in the subject position of an infinitival clause because the indirect object intervenes (cf. *Iassure you my sincerity). In (28b), locality prevents the movement of Mary over you.

•

The challenging example: In (28c), the moved embedded subject receives case in anintermediate landing site that it cannot receive in situ.
(Kayne 1984; Pesetsky 1991; Rezac 2013)

Situation (a) instantiated:(25)

English wager-class verbs (Postal 1974; Pesetsky 1991)
a. *We wagered Mary to be the most likely winner.
b. Mary, who we wagered to be the most likely winner...
c. Mary was wagered to be the most likely winner.

Double-object infinitive-taking verbs*I assure you Mary to be the best candidate.
*Mary was assured you __ to be the best candidate...
✓Mary, who I assure you __ to be the best candidate...

(Kayne 1984)

The puzzle in a standard lexicalist theory: How is the embedded subject licensed?

In a lexicalist world:

But the powers and non-powers of the putative higher case assigner would have to be
extraordinarily peculiar:

handout 2/page 6
(29)

(30)

Peculiarity 1: The putative case assigner is insensitive to category distinctions that
otherwise matter for case.
a. passive:
Mary, who I've been assured to be the best candidate...
b. adjective: Mary, who I am positive to be the best candidate...
Mary, who we're confident to be the best candidate...
c. noun:%Mary, who I have a hunch to be the best candidate...

(33)

Peculiarity 2: The putative case assigner saves only nominals that have been extracted
from the subject position of an infinitive. Extraction of a complement from a non-case
position cannot be saved by this case assigner.
a. passive:
your honesty, which I've been assured *(of) ...
b. adjective: Mary, who I am positive *(about)...
Mary, who we're confident *(of)...
c. noun:Mary, who I have a hunch *(about)...

6. Does Icelandic really challenge classic case theory?

•Non-subject extraction does not feed infinitivization*This book, which I assure you Sue to have read __.

Answer: No movement takes place here from Spec,TP to Spec,CP. It's not just movement toSpec,CP that triggers infinitivization, but specifically movement from Spec,TP.

NOM objects in non-finite clauses (repeated)(34)

The derivationalist alternative••

Infinitivization is the issue: If movement from an embedded clause to one of the positionsin (24) does not happen, no infinitivization is possible. The clause will remain a full finite CP.
No puzzle for case theory: No need to worry about the licensing of the moved subject in thewager/French or assure paradigms. The subject is always licensed in the embedded clause
before reduction of T to to.
In (31a-c), since movement of the embedded subject to an R2 position is impossible, theembedded clause should have remained finite, as in (32)

(31)

(32)

Not a case problem, but an untriggered infinitivization problem
a. *We wagered Mary to be the most likely winner.
b. *Je croyais cet homme être arrivé. 'I believed this man to have arrived.'
c. *I assure you Mary to be the best candidate.
Example (31a-c) without Raising(perhaps the φ-probe on C or V or both is optional)a. We wagered that Mary was the most likely winner.
b. Je croyais que cet homme est arrivé. 'I believed that this man arrived.'c. I assure you that Mary is the best candidate.

Non-subject Ā-movement from embedded clause•(35)

Question: Why does infinitivization not accompany object extraction? In (33), the embedded
subject is licensed by finite T before infinitivization — so why does extraction of the object
not infinitivize the embedded clause?

Life history of (35)
While the embedded clause is a full finite CP...
• Finite T in the embedded clause assigns NOM and case-licenses the nominative object — bywhatever magic permits it to do so in simple clauses.
When the R2 probe on 'believe' finds the DAT subject of the embedded clause ...
To be changed a bit later!
• It has first moved to Spec,CP, which (more to say specifically about this) is a Dissimilation
Configuration.
• The embedded DAT raises to spec,VP (over a higher-VP adverb, if present).
Anaphor-Agreement Effect before Infinitivization(36)

Reasons to blame the star on agreement:handout 2/page 7
•
•
•

•

a NOM-marked reflexive anaphor should be acceptable in a language without subject
agreement (as long as its antecedent is sufficiently local)
any syntactic position that is agreed with, even a non-subject, should block the appearance ofa reflexive in that position
special strategies might be invoked cross-linguistically that suppress agreement — to permit areflexive in otherwise agreeing positions (Woolford 1999, 258; Sundaresan 2016, 79; Yuan
2018)
No surprise that when an otherwise licensed Icelandic reflexive bears quirky case andtherefore fails to trigger φ-agreement, it is acceptable as a subject (since long-distance bindingof a reflexive across a subjunctive clause boundary is generally permitted in Icelandic):(37)

No surprise that a NOM object, which is a target for agreement by finite T, may not be areflexive in a finite clause:(38)

A big surprise (perhaps): that a reflexive is also excluded as the NOM object in an
infinitival R2 clause, where there is no visible agreement morphology in the embedded
clause:(39)••

Languages differ in exactly what obliterations and what reductions they tolerate.
Higher predicates may select for or against the output of reduction.

(40)

Reduction hierarchy in Kinyalolo Dissimilationa. Don't delete if the language prohibits it >>b.
otherwise Reduce C if specifier is non-criterial (C lacks semantic content) >>c.
otherwise Reduce T•

Long-distance Ā-movement of subject via spec,CPC is non-criterial and declarative (semantically vacuous) → reduce C(delete C, delete all C's features (that-trace effect), alter it (que~qui)•Short-distance Ā-movement of subject to spec,CPC is criterial and interrogative (semantically contentful) → reduce T(anti-agreeement)

AAE effect for NOM object in finite clause (Icelandic)(Everaert 1991; Woolford 1990)•

7. Reduction hierarchy and infinitivization under Raising

Easier Examples:(Maling 1984, 216 ex 8b; Woolford 1999, 261 ex 9a)•

Part 3: What reduces where

Harder examples:•Long-distance A-movement of the subject via spec,CP, i.e. R1 and R2
C is non-criterial and declarative → reduce C
But why is T also reduced in English R1 and R2?
This relates to the following question:
When C is inaudible due to Kinyalolo Dissimilation, are some features of C still present,
projecting CP, or is CP entirely exfoliated due to total elimination of its features?

AAE effect for NOM object in non-finite clause

Proposal: Both possibilities are attested — total exfoliation and mere silencing.
•

Not attributable to a failure of c-command by the DAT antecendent — since a DAT nominal
may serve as the antecedent for a non-nom reflexive.
(Zaenen et al. 1985, 456 ex 31; Taraldsen 1996, 200 ex 28)

Infinitivization resolution: The AAE arises from the pre-infinitivization derivational period inwhich the embedded clause contained a T that agreed (or attempted to agree) with it.

•

In English-style infinitival Raising constructions, CP has been exfoliated, producing asituation of (derived) TP complementation:

handout 2/page 8(41)•

Step 1: subject movement to Spec,CP → maximal reduction of C (yielding
exfoliation of CP):

(44)

Step 2: new Kinyalolo configuration → reduction of T

We now generalize Kinyalolo Dissimilation so that it is not just about C and T:(42) Kinyalolo Dissimilation (generalized)
In [XP … X [YP .... Y …]], where YP is the complement of X, if both X and Y have triggered
movement of the same phrase, one or the other must undergo featural reduction.

•

In Lusaamia and Moro hyper-raising with a that-trace effect, let us suppose that CP is nottotally exfoliated, but merely loses its phonological features — with that reduction counting
as Kinyalolo Dissimilation for both the C-T and V-C applications of the rule.
Because CP is never exfoliated, and C is not criterial, nothing motivates reduction of T —hence its hyper-raising character.

• And we generalize the reduction hierarchy:(43) Reduction hierarchy in Kinyalolo Dissimilation (generalized)
a. Don't delete if the language prohibits it >>b. otherwise reduce the higher head if non-criterial (lacks semantic content) >>c. otherwise reduce the lower head

8. Some details

•

(45)

A probe-featural view of the A/Ā distinction… ideas developed and defended in Van Urk's (2015) dissertation
a. A-movement is movement triggered by a φ-probe with EPP.
b. Ā-movement is movement triggered by an Ā-probe with EPP.

(46)

Ban on improper movement
An element that has undergone Ā-movement may not undergo A-movement.
(Even if a φ-probe treats it as a goal, it may not trigger movement.)

If Kinyalolo Dissimilation is generalized in this fashion, we can see that Exfoliation of CP has
created a new dissimilation environment involving the higher V instead of C. Since it has
semantic content (and in R2 is criterial), T now reduces.

handout 2/page 9
(47)

(48)

The features of important heads with an EPP property in English
a. T: always φb. C: always Ā, optionally A
c. V: always A [criterial for R2 verbs, otherwise not]d. v: always non-criterial Ā and (probably) always non-criterial A

Speculative observation: Movement to criterial C prefers to affect Agreement on T (antiagreement), while other movement that reduces T prefers to affect its TAM features. Unclear
why.

Possible Kinyalolo dissimilations in English
a. C: total reduction yielding exfoliation of CPb. T: reduction to to•R2: The subject A-moves to C, exfoliating CP; then moves to V in response to criteral φ-feature.
Because CP has been exfoliated, a second application of Kinyalolo Dissimilation reduces T to to.
Result: raising from an infinitivized clause.
R1: Like R2 above, except that the subject moves again to form a specifier of vP because the φfeature on V was non-criterial. Result: raising from an infinitivized clause.
Subject Ā-movement yielding a that-trace effect: The subject Ā-moved to C, exfoliating CP.
The ban on improper movement makes the φ-probe on V irrelevant to the next step of movement.
The Ā-probe on v triggers the next step of movement, which does not trigger a second applicationof Kinyalolo Dissimilation (since VP intervenes between v and C). Result: movement from afinite clause lacking the complementizer.
Long-distance Ā-movement of a non-subject: A non-subject will move via the specifier of theembedded vP to form spec,CP in response to the Ā-probe on C. This does not trigger anapplication of Kinyalolo Dissimilation. The ban on improper movement again makes the φ-probe
on the higher V irrelevant to the next step of movement — triggered by the φ-probe on the higherv, which once again does not trigger any application of Kinyalolo Dissimilation.
Kayne-paradigm Ā-movement: For wager-class verbs (and French believe-class verbs), thestory is identical to R1, with a non-criterial φ-probe on R2 triggering the first step of movement— except that the second step of movement is triggered by the Ā-feature on v.
For the case of assure, V takes the first object as its specifier and CP as its complement. The
embedded subject raises within CP, triggering exfoliative reduction to TP. The non-criterial φprobe on V attracts that subject to it, forming a second specifier and triggering the same second
step of reduction of embedded T to to seen in R1, R2 and Kayne-paradigm Ā-movement
discussed above. From there, it is attracted by the Ā-probe on v.
French: like English, except almost not criterial R2 probes, and:a. reduced C due to Ā-probe → quib. reduced C due to A-probe → exfoliation as in English
Anti-agreement: Because interrogative C is criterial, when the Ā-feature on C attracts the
subject, Kinyalolo Dissimilation must reduce T rather than C.

Why does English not show anything like anti-agreement in a short-distance wh-question?
Perhaps it does? Maybe the absence of T-to-C movement in short-distance subject questions is
a sign that T has been slightly reduced so as to lack the feature that C targets to raise T.

(49)a. Who *(did) Mary visit __?
b. Who (*did) visit Mary?
Is there no ban on improper movement?

Part 4: Infinitivization and Control
9. New thoughts about control
Not movement to controller …
Control phenomena always involve a distinct controller and controllee (e.g. PRO) — notmovement between these positions.
…but the controllee undergoes movement nonetheless — to Spec,CP, in response to a φ-probe
on C, creating a dissimilation environment. [Crucial, at least for non-hyper-control languages:
the skipping strategy is unavailable for controllees.]
Challenges:• Infinitivization (and other kinds of clause reduction) characteristic of control constructions
must reflect local movement of the subject.
What moves from subject position, why and to where?
The controllee moves in response to a φ-probe on a complementizer that provides control,creating a Kinyalolo Dissimilation configuration.
•

Restructuring infinitives (at least in German, where "long passive" is possible): theseappear to involve control, but have been argued by Wurmbrand and others to be very very
very small — a bare VP, in fact, lacking every normal component of a clause including vP.
Why are they infinitival, and why are they control constructions if they lack vP andhandout 2/page 10
therefore a syntactic position for the external argument?
I will suggest that they are somewhat bigger than has been claimed.
•

But: Landau (2015) proposes that the clause-external controller is not necessarily theobvious argument in the visible higher clause. Attitude predicates select a phrase larger thanthe visible complement, which contains attitude-bearer arguments that are the proximate
controller of PRO in the visible complement — hence the possibility of partial and split
control (really partial/split control of attitude holder arguments in the intermediate projection).

Character of the controllee: Why is the controllee often silent (PRO) or at most a weak
overt pronoun (e.g. Bùlì)?
I will have something to say about this, but not a huge amount,•

Proposal:Control involves movement of a semantically vacuous phonologically null element tospec,CP, creating a predicate.
(50)

Control configuration

Why does the controllee move following the same laws as any other nominal (the nullcase problem)?
Instead of "null case", PRO receives normal NOM case and agrees with T in a normal fashion
before infinitivization takes place. Argument from participle and secondary-predicateagreement:

Mary planned [CP PRO C [ __ to visit Tokyo]]•(53)
Semantic conjectures:(51)

Control configuration denoting a property…
Mary planned [CP PRO λx. C [ x to visit Tokyo]](52)… and in fact can be used as a relative clause (a more obvious property)
a. I am looking for a person [CP PRO λx. C [ x to play Hamlet ]]b. The last person [CP PRO λx. C [ x to leave ]] should turn off the lights.

•"the element known as PRO functions as a property-creating abstractor" (Landau, buildingon Chierchia 1984)•"More interesting are situations where the infinitive is headed by some functional category(Asp, T, Fin, etc.). These categories project phrases that are not natural predicates, andbecome predicative only with the aid of a syntactic operator. Thus, a clause is turned into apredicate by an operator merged at its edge, either externally or internally (by movement); theoperator is later translated as a λ-abstractor. This device is put to use in relative clauses,
toughconstructions, object purpose clauses, parasitic gap constructions, left dislocation, andcopy-raising constructions [….]" Landau (2014) A Two-tiered theory of Control•(R2)(Control)(R2)(Control)Why is T reduced?
C is criterial, supporting (in some fashion) the interpretation of the embedded clause as
controlled.

•

A derivational opacity argument for a reduction analysis of control infinitives : NOM
controllees in Icelandic
Raising: NOM on subject overwritten by ACC, when subject raises into higher VP
Control: NOM remains

Why is control always cross-clausal, and why is the controlled position limited to thesubject?
If control depends on a complementizer with a φ-probe, like the one that facilitates R1 andR2, then in general the controlled position will always be the subject of an embedded clause— so its controller will be clause-external.

apud Bobaljik and Landau (2009)… and the secondary predicate really is agreeing with PRO: the verb bore takes a DAT
subject, and PRO is DAT, normal case behavior:handout 2/page 11
b.

(54)

TP
3

T’
3

NOM

John

(Bobaljik and Landau 2009, 116)

vP
3

T°

tSUBJ

v’
3

vP
3

ACC

10. Restructuring (focusing on German)
(55)

VP
3

Basic structure of German restructuring infinitival clauses according to Wurmbandt(1998; 2002)
vP
3

v’
3

SUBJ

John

VP
3

DO

VP
3

a song

•

DO

VP
3

the car
v˚

V˚
tried

V°
tried

V°
to repair(57)

Long Passive:
passivize the upstairs verb, and it's the downstairs object that must move
weil [der Lastwagen und der Traktor] zu reparieren versucht wurden/*wurde
since [the truck and the tractor]-NOM to repair
tried
were/*wasmeaning: 'since somebody tried to repair the truck and the tractor'
but literally: 'since the truck and the tractor were tried to repair'(58)

Long Passive structureV˚
to sing

If v hosts both the external argument (and possibly all subject arguments) and assigns
ACC case...

TP
3... what this entails about control:
•
•

vP
3

ACC assignment in a restructuring infinitival clause comes from the higher v, sinceDOversuchte
tried

VP
3

[the truck &the tractor]

the lower VP has no case assigner of its own
weil Hans den Wagenzu reparieren
since John [the car]-ACC to repair‘since John tried to repair the car’

T°
were

VP
3

...what this entails about case:

a.

T’
3

NOM

There must be a way to understand the agent of the embedded VP as identical to the externalargument of the higher verb without the presence of an actual controlled PRO in theembedded clause.
This does not entail that all control clauses should be analyzed as subjectless.

(56)

v°
[+active]•v°[-active/-ACC]
V°
tried

V°
to restore

Supporting evidence: when long passive (or long-distance scrambling, also unique torestructuring clauses) takes place ...
o an inherent or benefactive reflexive is excluded (no local subject)o the embedded clause cannot have its own tense semantics (no T)
o the embedded clause cannot has its own negation (no NEG)... so it is so small that it lacks an external argument position, tense, negation, and theability to assign ACC —but not so small that it lacks the verb itself.

handout 2/page 12

11. restructuring → no PRO to bind an inherent or benefactive reflexive

12. long passive → no negation in the embedded clause

•

(61)

No restructuring, non-long passive →embedded clause may contain negation(62)

Restructuring, long passive →embedded clause may not contain negation

Verbs that can take a restructuring complement can also take a full CP complement (andproduce non-long passives, including impersonal passives(59) No restructuring, impersonal passive →ok sich in embedded clause with subject antecedent(60)

Yes restructuring, long passive →*sich in embedded clause with subject antecedenthandout 2/page 13

13. restructuring → no independent tense in the embedded clause

14. How small are restructuring clauses really? And what part is small?

(63)

Sketch of an alternative:• German restructuring clauses are "full" insofar as they start out, like all clauses, with
CP and TP layers — i.e. they start out full and finite, and even contain a full and normal
vP…

No restructuring → tense mismatch possible•… but from the beginning, they are missing layers between vP and TP that nonrestructuring clauses have.
This possibility is not a shock, since (for example) layers of the English auxiliary verb system
can be fully missing. The absence of TemporalP, PolarityP and perhaps more layers between
vP and TP is the special property that characterizes German restructuring clauses.
(accounts for lack of independent tense and ability to negate)•

Control involves a null element like PRO, which moves to spec,TP and from there tospec,CP like controlled PRO in fuller clauses…
(so no need for semantic magic alongside conventional PRO)

(64)

Restructuring → no tense mismatch possible•… but this null element lacks features found in controlled PRO within larger clauses — call it
PROmin, with the following consequences:o it cannot antecede a reflexive
o it does not count as a case-competitor for the assignment of ACC to the object
o it does not count as an intervener for a higher case-competitor or probe(65)

Restructuring that includes a controlled subject
Restructuring in German involves PRO after all — but a version of PRO that is featurally
so small it does not antecede reflexives, act as a case competitor, or count for minimality(PROmin).

Why the subject of a restructuring clause is super-small "PROmin":(66)

Satık's generalization (2022):
The size of the subject of a clause correlates with the size of the clause.

handout 2/page 14(67)

How to explain Satık's generalization
a. Featural demands of heads: Individual heads in the clausal spine search for anominal that bears certain specific features. (As a consequence, the more such heads
are present in a clause, the more feature-rich the nominal must be.)[not in Satık's
paper]
b. Economy condition (Satik, building on Cardinaletti & Starke 1999): Minimize
featural content.

Baker's observation concerning nominal richness and ability to license dependent case(68)

Dependent case-relevant nominal hierarchy•"The idea is that categories to the right on this scale have a subset of the nominal features thatcategories to their left on the scale have. Languages then vary as to which of these features isminimally necessary in order to participate in dependent case assignment." (Baker 2015)

•
•
•
•
•

Sakha: even implicit agent of passive and of deverbal nominalizations trigger ACC
Turkish, Tamil, Amharic...: PRO and pro yes, but not implicit agents of passive etc.
Finnish...: not uncontrolled PRO, but yes controlled PRO
Cuzco Quechua...: pro but not PRO (be careful about restructuring!)
Coast Timshian: neither pro nor PRO of any sort

(69)

PROmin and Long Passive
German PROmin is too featurally small to(1) license dependent ACC(2) serve as an antecedent for reflexives(3) count as an intervener for movement triggered by a higher φ-probe

Analysis:••

A German restructuring clause is generated with a full C and T, but nothing else besides vP.
Therefore, by (67) the subject that starts out in vP has minimal featural demands placed on it,
and therefore is minimal itself: PROmin.

•

The interpretation of an element as small as PROmin must involve control, so C must be the•control version of the complementizer — and PROmin raises to form spec,CP, triggering
reduction to an infinitive.
Zu is just a normal infinitival T, Control involves no magic — but the control