ON THE CALCULUS OF CONTROLAND LACK OF OVERT AGREEMENT MORPHOLOGY *Tomohiro Fujii
Yokohama National University

1.

Introduction

The finite/nonfinite distinction has been playing a crucial role in explaining properties ofobligatory control (OC) [e.g., (1a)] and of raising [e.g., (2a)]. A well-accepted way ofdescribing the relevant generalization is by saying that OC and raising are only found with
nonfinite subordinate clauses. That is, finite clauses — those inflected for tense andagreement — do not allow either process [(1b), (2b)].
(1) a. Lisa promised [PRO to leave].
b. * Lisa promised [PRO would leave]. (cf. Lisa promised she would leave.)(2) a. Lisa seems [t to have left].
b. * Lisa seems [t has left]. (cf. It seems that Lisa has left.)
This traditional notion of finiteness has been challenged by Landau (2004, 2006). Putting
huge data from various languages in perspective, Landau observes that environmentsallowing OC do not form a natural class and that “the only generalization in this domain thatappears to be universal is the incompatibility of indicative clauses with OC” (Landau
2004:849-50).
Landau’s typology, as well as a simplified version of it proposed by Nunes (2008) and
Boeckx, Hornstein and Nunes (2010) (to which we will turn in section 2), crucially uses
semantic tense ([T]) and agreement ([Agr]) to correctly predict when OC is possible and when
it fails. In a theory of this type (which we call a Landau-style typology of control), the“incompatibility of indicative clauses with OC” is explained by saying that the Infl headspecified [+Agr] and [+T] necessarily licenses a lexical subject. Taking Landau’s typology as
the point of departure, the present paper asks what a Landau-style typology of control can say
about a language without overt agreement morphology. More specifically, the paper attempts
to seek a minimally modified version of the theory that can accommodate Japanese, a* Part of the material in this paper is based on a paper presented at the Fourth Workshop of the
Nanzan International Research Project on Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition, July 2009,
Nanzan University. I’d like to thank the audience members from whom I received valuable comments.
Nanzan Linguistics 8, 1–16
©2012 Tomohiro Fujii

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012

language that exhibits no overt morphological agreement but does exhibit overt tense
morphology.
In what follows, it is claimed (i) that due to the lack of overt agreement morphology inJapanese, it is not immediately clear whether the Landau-style typology, as it stands, canaccount for the distribution of OC in the language; and (ii) that the theory can be made toempirically work by revising the feature [Agr] in such a way that it can deal with overt tense
morphology as well as overt agreement morphology.
The organization of the paper is as follows. Section 2 introduces the backgroundassumptions concerning Landau’s ‘scale of finiteness’ proposal. We review Landau’s theory
and the modified version of it that has been proposed by Nunes (2008) and Boeckx, Hornsteinand Nunes (2010). Section 3 examines the behavior of OC and non-control complements
containing overt tense markers in Japanese, proposing the generalization that independent
tense complements, unlike untensed and dependent tense complements, resist OC. Section 4seeks a way of making a Landau-style typology with this generalization, given that Japaneseapparently lacks [Agr]. Three alternatives are considered. Section 5 concludes the paper.
2.

The Calculus of Control (Landau 2004, 2006)

This section lays out the assumptions employed in Landau’s proposal andNunes/BH&N’s version of it. Proposing that [T(ense)] and [Agr(eement)] determine the
distribution of OC PRO, Landau (2004, 2006) pursues the hypothesis that “an Infl head
positively specified for both features [+T, +Agr] will necessarily license a lexical subject”
while “an Infl head with any negative specification — [+T, −Agr], [−T, +Agr], [−T, −Agr] —will necessarily license PRO” (Landau 2006:160). This ‘calculus of control’ predicts thatclauses are classified into four types, as the two binary features can be combined in fourways. In Landau’s more elaborate implementation of the theory, though, [Agr] and [T] on C°
are also taken into consideration for the “calculus of control”. Nunes (2008) and Boeckx,
Hornstein and Nunes (2010) (BH&N, henceforth) propose to simplify Landau’s original
proposal by restricting the locus of clause type variation to T° (or Infl°), rather than both T°
and C°. The present paper assumes with Nunes and BH&N that we need no reference to C,
mainly because the system without [T] and [Agr] on C° still seems rich enough to address theissue of interest that arises in Japanese.1
Another significant difference between Landau’s and Nunes/BH&N’s version has to dowith the meaning of the symbols [+Agr] and [−Agr], as noted in Nunes (2008) and BH&N.
For Landau, “+” reflects overt morphological agreement inflection. Thus infinitival T°, being
uninflected, is specified [−Agr] in the original proposal. For Nunes/BH&N, the meaning of“+” and “−” is somewhat more abstract: [+Agr] indicates that the relevant φ-features of T° are
fully specified while [−Agr] indicates that they are φ-deficient or null. An example of1

See Polinsky and Potsdam (2006) for another way of simplifying Landau’s proposal. They consider
the features on C exclusively, in contrast to Nunes (2008) and BH&N.

-2-

The Calculus of Control and Lack of Overt Agreement Morphology (T. Fujii)

φ-deficiency of this sort comes from Brazilian Portuguese. Analyzing finite control andhyper-raising in Brazilian Portuguese in which OC PRO and NP-trace occur with clearly
inflected complements, Nunes (2008) and BH&N argue the following: the T° of Brazilian
Portuguese “finite” clauses is marked [+Agr] when it enters the numeration with both person
and number features. “Finite” T°, however, is sometimes marked [−Agr] when it lacks anumber feature in the numeration. On the surface, the two kinds of T look the same due to theweakening of finite verbal morphology of the language. The point is that the characterizationof “−” in terms of deficiency allows us to avoid analyzing finite control as involving a T°
specified [+T, +Agr].2 This helps to make the “calculus of control” considerably simple(BH&N: 66). Throughout the paper, I assume Nunes’s and HB&N’s interpretation of “+” and“−”.
Landau and Nunes/BH&N also differ on how these feature specifications lead todetermine the distribution of OC PRO. Although this difference between the two theories
does not affect the conclusions of this paper, let us take a brief look in order to complete thepicture. For Landau, a clausal head, if specified [+T, +Agr], is assigned a feature (called [+R])that makes the T° require a referential DP, yielding no control. Elsewhere, T° is assigned [−R]and thereby requires an anaphoric DP like OC PRO as its specifier. For Nunes/BH&N, OC
PRO is NP-trace, and NP-movement is allowed only from a non-case position. By assumingthat only T° with [+T, +Agr] assigns nominative case, NP-movement can be made to apply
when T° has any of the three other feature combinations.
Given these caveats, let’s review fundamental data points that lead Landau (2004, 2006)
to posit the four clause types. Consider the examples given in (3)–(7).
(3) [−T, −Agr]: Untensed infinitives in English = OC (Landau 2000)
a. John managed to solve the problem.
b. * Yesterday John managed to solve the problem tomorrow.
(4) [+T, −Agr]: Dependent tense infinitives in English = OC (Landau 2000)
aJohn decided to solve the problem.

2

Hebrew 3rd-person subjunctives, as reported in Landau (2004), lead to the same situation. Examples
are given below. (ib) involves OC even though the embedded predicate is inflected. See Landau(2004), Nunes (2008), and BH&N (p. 67).
(i)a. Hem1
they

kivu
hoped

še-atem2 /pro2
that-you (pl.) / protelxu
will-go.2pl

ha-baytahomemukdam.
early‘They hoped that you (pl) would go home early.’b. Hem1
they

kivu
hoped

še-hem1/2 / pro1/*2
that-they / pro

yelxu
will-go.3pl‘They hoped that they would go home early.’-3-

ha-bayta mukdam.
home
early

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012b. Yesterday John hoped to solve the problem tomorrow.
(5) [−T, +Agr]: Untensed subjunctives in Greek ≠ OC (Varlokosta 1994)
a. o
the

Yanis
John

kseri/arxizi
knows/beingsnaSbj

kolimba.
swims‘John {knows how, begins} to swim.’b. * tora,
now

o
the

Yanis
John

kseri/arxizi
knows/beingsnaSbj

kolimbaiswims

avrio.
tomorrow‘Now, John {knows how, begins} to swim tomorrow.’(6) [+T, +Agr]: Dependent tense subjunctives in Greek ≠ OC (Varlokosta 1994)
a. o
the

Yanis
John

elpizi/thelinahopes/wants Sbj

figi.
leaves‘John {wants, hopes} to leave.’b. tora,
now

o
the

Yanis
John

elpizi/thelihopes/wants

na
Sbj

figi
leavesavrio.
tomorrow‘Now John {wants, hopes} to leave tomorrow.’(7) [+T, +Agr]: Indicatives in English ≠ OC
a. John hoped that he will win.
b. Yesterday, John hoped that he will win tomorrow.
Let us begin with the English infinitive constructions given in (3) and (4). In both
examples, the complements are infinitives, so their T heads are specified [−Agr]. They do not
inflect. (3) and (4) are different in terms of semantic tense, though. (3a) is an example of what
is called an untensed complement. Here the embedded T° is negatively specified for [T]. The
value of [T] is diagnosed by looking at the (im)possibility of a tense mismatch. As indicatedby the ungrammaticality of (3b), the implicative verb manage does not allow the matrix andthe embedded event to contain conflicting time expressions. Thus the embedded T° is
specified [−T].
(4a) is an example of dependent tense complements, which occur with verbs like hope.
Since these complements always receive a future-oriented or irrealis reading, theirinterpretation is not as flexible as that of indicative (i.e., fully inflected) complements. Despite
that, however, the dependent tense complement is not untensed, as evidenced by thegrammaticality of the tense mismatch example in (4b). Therefore the embedded T° in (4) is
positively specified for [T]. The point is that when T° bears [−Agr], OC is possible regardlessof the value of [T]. (The reader is referred to Landau (2000) for detailed classification ofvarious selecting predicates.)-4-

The Calculus of Control and Lack of Overt Agreement Morphology (T. Fujii)(5) and (6) are examples of Greek subjunctive complements. Each embedded T° is
specified [+Agr], since subjunctive verbs exhibit overt agreement morphology (see Iatridou
1993, Terzi 1992, Varlokosta 1994 and others). As for their semantic tense, the complementsof begin and know (how) are untensed exactly like the English implicative complement seen
above, as shown in (5b). Hence their embedded T° bears [−T]. The complements of hope andwant, however, allow a tense mismatch, as exemplified by (6b) (Varlokosta 1994). Since[Agr] is invariantly marked “+” in (5) and (6), only when the other feature, i.e., [T], bears
negatively valued is OC possible, as predicted by the calculus of control.
Finally, indicative complements like the one in (7) are considered to have an inflected T°(i.e., specified [+Agr]) and to be tensed (i.e., specified [+T]). Indicatives are different fromdependent tense infinitives in that their tense is not dependent on the matrix verb in therelevant sense; E.g., Monique decided to be in Paris does not have the simultaneous readingthat Monique decided that she was in Paris does have, as noted in Abusch (2004). As far as
specification of [T] on T° is concerned, however, they are treated the same, being specified[+T].
The four categories and their category members are presented below (see BH&N, p.38).
(8)[+T, −Agr]• Untensed• uninflected• infinitives, etc.

Obligatory control[+T, −Agr][−T, +Agr]• Tensed infinitives,• Hebrew 3rd-person• subjunctives,• Brazilian• Portuguese finite• clauses, etc.

• Balkan untensed• subjunctives, etc.

No control[+T, +Agr]• English• indicatives,• Balkan tensed• subjunctives, etc.

Assuming that the Landau style approach to the scale of finiteness is correct, I will turn toJapanese in next section.
3.

The Basic Japanese Data: OC into Ru/Ta-Clauses

Japanese does not exhibit overt person/gender/number morphology on predicates. The
language instead has overt agglutinative tense morphology in which the so-called present
tense marker -ru and the past tense marker -ta are contrasted. In (9a) and (9b), -ru and -ta
respectively attach to the verbal root tabe- ‘eat’.
(9) a. tabe-ru
eat-Prsb. tabe-ta
eat-Pst-5-

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012

Also important to note about Japanese verbal morphology is that it is not clear that thelanguage has the morphological verbal category “infinitive”. The fact that the citation form ofa verb is the present tense form may be taken as an anecdotal indication that the language
lacks infinitives. The language also has no indication of having the morphological category“subjunctive”. In a nutshell, therefore, it is not straightforward at all to make a three way
distinction among indicative, subjunctive and infinitive based on overt morphologicalevidence in Japanese. 3
Given these, it may be less surprising that some OC complements, in terms of verbal
morphology, do not look much different from non-control complements that can be translated
into other languages as indicatives: Whether controlled or not, complements can be marked
with -ru or -ta. We will review core data in Japanese below; see Fujii (2008) and references
cited therein for fuller discussion.
(10)–(13) illustrate how the ru-complement of tikau ‘swear’ differs from that of
kangaeru ‘think/consider’ with respect to some well-known diagnostics for OC. Consider the(a)-examples first.4(10)

karera-wa kantoku-ni [ec otagai-o naguri-aw-u
they-Top director-Dat
e.o.-Acc hit-Recip-Prs{a. *tikat-te,
b. kangae-te}hosikatta.
{a. *swear-Grnd b. think-Grndwantedkoto]-oC-Acc‘They wanted the (movie) director to {a. swear to hit each other, b. think about themhitting each other}.’(11)[Mary-no[Mary-Gen{a. #tikatta,{a. #swore

titioya]-wa [ec sono
father-Top
thatb. kangaeta}.
b. thought

byooin-dehospital-insyussansu-ru
give birth-Prskoto]-oC-Acc‘Mary’s father {a. swore to give birth in that hospital, b. thought about her giving
birth in that hospital}.’3This does not mean that we cannot make such a mood distinction at a more abstract, syntactic level
for Japanese. See Watanabe (1996) and Uchibori (2000) for such attempts. See also Landau’s (2004,
2006) analysis of Hebrew 3rd-person subjunctives.
4

In those examples, the nominalizing complementizer koto can be replaced by another nominalizing
complementizer no, though native speakers’ judgments may vary; see Kuno (1973). We abstract awayfrom the issue of complementizer choice.

-6-

The Calculus of Control and Lack of Overt Agreement Morphology (T. Fujii)(12)Mary-wa [ec zibun-no
Mary-Top
self-Gen{a. tikatta, b. kangaeta}.
{a. swore b. thought

peesu-de sigoto-otuzuke-rukoto]-opace-atwork-Acc continue-Prs C-Acc
Butyoo-moda.
manager-also Cop.Prs‘Mary {a. swore to continue her work, b. thought about continuing her work} at her
own pace. And the manager, too.’
Strict reading possible with (b), but not with (a).
(13)

sono kiokusoositu kanzya-wa [ec taiinsu-ru koto]-o {a. tikatta, b. kangaeta}.
that amnesiac
patient-Top
leave-Prs C-Acc {a. swore b. thought‘The amnesiac {a. swore to leave the hospital, b. thought about leaving the
hospital}.’Non-de se possible with (b), but not with (a).

These (a)-examples clearly show that the verb swear takes a ru-complement and induces OC.
The null subject of the ru-clause cannot be bound long distance [(10a)]; A non-c-commanding
NP cannot antecede the ec [(11a)]; the ec does not support a strict reading [(12a)]; and the ec
cannot be interpreted in a non-de se manner [(13a)]. All these indicate that the null subject is
OC PRO. (I will return to the (b)-examples shortly.)
A parallel set of examples can be constructed with ta-complements, which are
past-oriented. In the (a)-examples in (14)–(17) with the verb kuyamu ‘regret’, thecomplements are in the past tense.
(14)

karera-wa [kantoku-ni[ec
they-Top[director-Dat{a. *kuyan-de, b. kangae-te}{a. *swear-Grnd b. think-Grndotagai-o naguri-at-ta koto]-oe.o.-Acc hit-Recip-Pst C-Acc
hosikatta.
wanted‘They wanted the movie director to {a. regret having hitting each other, b. think
about them having hit each other}.’(15)[Mary-no titioya]-wa[ec sono[Mary-Gen father-Topthat{a. #kuyanda, b. kangaeta}.
{a. #regretted b. thought

byooin-dehospital-insyussansi-ta
give birth-Pstkoto]-oC-Acc‘Mary’s father {a. regretted having given birth in that hospital, b. thought about her
having given birth in that hospital}.’-7-Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012(16)

Mary-wa [ec zibun-no peesu-de sigoto-o tuzuke-ta
koto]-oMary-Top
self-Gen pace-at work-Acc continue-Pst C-Acc{a. kuyanda, b. kangaeta}.
Butyoo-moda.
{a. regretted b. thoughtmanager-also Cop.Prs‘Mary {a. regretted having continued her work, b. thought about having continued
her work at her own pace}. And the manager, too.’
Strict reading possible with (b), but not with (a).

(17)

sono kiokusoositu kanzya-wa [ec taiinsu-ta koto]-o {a. kuyanda, b. kangaeta}.
that amnesiac
patient-Top
leave-Pst C-Acc {a. regretted b. thought‘The amnesiac {a. regretted having left the hospital, b. thought about having left thehospital.’
Non-de se possible with (b), but not with (a).

In (14)–(17), the (a)-examples exhibit a sharp contrast with their counterparts given in (b).
While kuyamu ‘regret’ yields OC, kangaeru ‘think (about)’ does not.
What is the exact nature of the cut between the (a)-examples and (b)-examples? Building
on observations made in the past literature, Fujii (2006) observes that OC ensues when thetense morphology of the relevant clause is “fixed”, i.e. does not allow alternation of -ta and-ru (Nakau 1973:225, Kuno 1973:219, Ohso 1976:90ff., Saito 1985:267, n34, Sakaguchi
1990, Ueda 1990:76, Watanabe 1996, among others). He states the generalization as follows:(18)

If the T of a subordinate clause cannot have -ta or cannot have -ru in environment E,
it bears [−finite] in E.

Note, as shown in (19), that tikau ‘swear’ and kuyamu ‘regret’ resist occurring with ata-complement and a ru-complement, respectively. Therefore, those complements are[−finite], according to (18). This is a good result since these are OC complements, as we saw
above.
(19) a. * Mari-wa issyookenmei
Mari-Top hard

hatarak-u
work-Prs

koto-oC-Acckuyanda.
regretted

b. * Mari-wa issyookenmei
Mari-Top hard

hatarai-ta
work-Pst

koto-oC-Acc

tikatta.
swore

Now return to the (b)-examples of (10)–(17). Since kangaeru allows both ru-complements[(10)–(13)] and ta-complements [(14)–(17)], (18) accounts for the fact that the complementsof the verb in these examples cannot be [−finite] and thus is not subject to OC.
The data in (19) suggest that kuyamu and tikau take dependent tense complements. (20a)and (21) confirm it. (Also, it is not surprising that the complement of kangaeru ‘think’ has its
own tense domain, as shown in (20b), since it is an independent tense complement.)-8-

The Calculus of Control and Lack of Overt Agreement Morphology (T. Fujii)(20)Mari-wa asita
hatarak-u koto-oMari-Top tomorrow work-Prs C-Acc

kinoo{a. tikatta, b. kangaeta}.
yesterday {a. swore b. thought‘Yesterday Mari {a. swore to work tomorrow, b. thought about working tomorrow}.’(21)

Mari-wa kinoo
hataraki-ta koto-oMari-Top tomorrow work-Prs C-Acc

asukuyam-uyesterday regret-Prs

daroo.
will‘Tomorrow Mari will regret having worked yesterday.’
It is not only dependent tense complements that (18) correctly predicts to allow OC.
Untensed OC complements also do not have the ability to support both -ru and -ta. Nakau(1973:278) notes that the aspectual verb hazimeru ‘begin’ can take a ru-complement andinduces OC (and raising). As evidenced by the ungrammatical tense mismatch in (22a), theru-complement with begin is untensed, even though a tense marker is overtly present. That is,the complement of begin, unlike a dependent tense complement [(22b)] does not have its own
tense domain. Now it should be noted that, as shown in (23), the past tense marker isdisallowed in a CP complement of begin. Thus the proposed relationship between OC and the“fixed tense” phenomenon holds for untensed complements containing an overt tense marker.
(22)

Mari-wa asita
hatarak-u koto-oMari-Top tomorrow work-Prs C-Acc

kinoo{a. *hazimeta, b. kessinsita}.
yesterday {a. *began
b. decided‘Yesterday Mari {began, decided} to work tomorrow.’(23)

Mari-wa {a. hatarak-u, b. *hatarai-ta}
Mari-Top {a. work-Pst b. *work-Pst

koto-oC-Acc

hazimeta.
began‘Mari began to work.’
To summarize:(24)

In Japanese, while untensed and dependent tense complements are compatible with
OC, independent tense complements are not.5

Japanese is different from Balkan languages because as noted in section 2, in these languages,
untensed subjunctives induce OC but dependent tense subjunctives do not. Instead, Japaneseis on a par with Hebrew, where OC is found with 3rd-person future-oriented complements(fn. 2). The main point is that the picture for Japanese looks quite close to the one that Landauputs forth, namely, “the incompatibility of OC with indicatives”. In next section, I ask how it
is possible to express a language like Japanese in the Landau-style calculus of control.

5

It is not the case that dependent tense complements always exclude non-OC complements. The
reader is referred to Fujii (2006, 2008), which investigate the conditions under which NOC dependent
tense complements are obtained.

-9-Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012

4.

Putting Japanese into the Calculus of Control

4.1.

Overt Tense Inflection

Now we are in a position to ask where the relevant Japanese constructions are placed in
the table that Landau proposes and that Nunes (2008) and BH&N modify. (8) is repeatedbelow as (25).
(25)[−T, −Agr]• Untensed• uninflected• infinitives, etc.

Obligatory control[+T, −Agr]• Tensed infinitives,• Hebrew 3rd-person• subjunctives,• Brazilian• Portuguese finite• clauses, etc.

[−T, +Agr]• Balkan untensed• subjunctives, etc.

No control[+T, +Agr]• English• indicatives,• Balkan tensed• subjunctives, etc.

The issue is obvious, given that Japanese has no overt agreement morphology. How can weknow whether a given Japanese clause should be specified [+Agr] or [−Agr]? The
specification needs to be done independently of whether the clause in question is subject to
OC or not. Namely, if we labeled a clause [+Agr] or [−Agr] by looking at whether the clauseis obligatorily controlled or not, then the typology in question would stop predicting anything.
Below I first consider two alternative answers to the question and show that they do not work
very well. I, then, propose that Japanese data lead us to modify the feature [Agr] in a way thatallows the system to refer to overt tense morphology in addition to overt agreement
morphology.
The first alternative can be depicted as in (26). Based on their behaviors with regard to
OC, Japanese untensed and dependent tense complements are placed under “Obligatory
control” while Japanese independent tense complements under “No control”. Untensed
complements bear [−T], and dependent tense complements [+T], as we have seen above.
(26)[−T, −Agr]• Untensed• uninflected• infinitives, etc.

(• Untensed(• ru-complements)

Obligatory control[+T, −Agr]• Tensed infinitives,• Hebrew 3rd-person• subjunctives,• Brazilian• Portuguese finite• clauses, etc.
• Dependent ru- or• ta-complements[−T, +Agr]

No control[+T, +Agr]• Balkan untensed• subjunctives, etc.

• English• indicatives,• Balkan tensed• subjunctives, etc.

(• Untensed(• ru-complements)• Independent• ru/ta-complements

Note that in (26), dependent ru- and ta-complements are specified [−Agr] and independent
ru/ta-complements are specified [+Agr]. This is so because the former induce OC and the- 10 -

The Calculus of Control and Lack of Overt Agreement Morphology (T. Fujii)

latter do not. One serious problem with this alternative is that there is no independent
evidence for these specifications. In order to determine which complements go with whichfeature specifications under this analysis, one would need to know whether or not a given
complement induces OC.
The second alternative is somewhat more interesting. Let us think about what this‘calculus of control’ table will look like if Japanese lacks the feature [±Agr]?6 To answer thisquestion, let us recall how exactly the distribution of OC PRO is determined in a system ofthis sort (section 2). Under Nunes/BH&N’s case-based approach, only a T° with [+T, +Agr]
assigns nominative case. So when combined with this case theory, the result would be thatevery Japanese clause would induce OC (or raising), given that T° would be specified either[−T, ∅] or [+T, ∅]. This is clearly an unwanted result. Under Landau’s (2004:842) system,on the other hand, R-assignment Rule is formulated in such a way that no [R] value isassigned to the relevant functional head if the head lacks [Agr] or [T]. (Recall that [+R] and[−R] are associated with referential DPs and with “anaphoric” DPs like OC PRO,
respectively.) Thus, it follows that neither T° nor C° in Japanese carries [+R] or [−R]. It isthus clear enough that this second alternative fails to distinguish between OC and no control
cases.
Having seen how the two alternatives fail, I would like to propose one way of making
the typology work for Japanese. The final alternative poses some questions as well (seebelow) but it, unlike the previous two, provides the right cut between OC and no control. Let
us see how this is so. The key is to allow the feature [Agr] to speak of overt tense morphology
as well as overt agreement morphology. Let us call the feature [Infl], instead of [Agr], for thecurrent purposes. First, the T° of untensed ru-complements [(22)–(23)] and that of dependent
ru- or ta-complements [(10a)–(17a)] both can be considered “deficient” even though verbs of
the ru-form or the ta-form are inflected for tense. This is because in those environments,
either -ru or -ta is blocked. Under the ‘deficiency’ interpretation of “−”, the T° of thosecomplements are specified [−Infl]. This way, the leftmost two cells in the last row in (27) arefilled in. Next, recall that the T° of independent tense complements has the ability to support
both -ru and -ta. It is not deficient. We take this ability to mean that the ‘independent tense’ T
is specified [+Infl]. Hence complements of verbs like kangaeru ‘think’ [(10b)–(17b)] fallunder [+T, +Infl], as desired, as in (27).7

6

Kuroda (1983) notes this very possibility. He suggests that even tense heads may not have anything
to do with the distribution of PRO. His suggestion is based on the distribution of arbitrary controlled
null subjects. I cannot afford to discuss this intriguing issue here.
7

A somewhat similar idea about finiteness can be found in Huang (1989), which discusses finitenessin Chinese, another language without overt verbal agreement morphology. Huang argues that
finiteness is encoded in terms of potential occurrence of a Tense or Aspectual expression under T° in
Chinese. In his ‘Generalized Control’ theory, though, the relationship between finiteness and OC isless direct than in the framework assumed here.

- 11 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012

(27)[−T, −Infl]• Untensed• uninflected• infinitives, etc.

• Untensed• ru-complements

Obligatory control[+T, −Infl]• Tensed infinitives,• Hebrew 3rd-person• subjunctives,• Brazilian• Portuguese finite• clauses, etc.
• Dependent ru- and• ta-complements[−T, +Infl]• Balkan untensed• subjunctives, etc.

No control[+T, +Infl]• English• indicatives,• Balkan tensed• subjunctives, etc.

• Independent• ru/ta-complements

Before closing this subsection, let us note non-trivial questions that are left with noanswer in this paper. I mention two of them here. First, notice that we have not found an
untensed complement that exclusively selects the past tense marker -ta, as can be observed by
the last row under [−T, −Infl]. The question of why untensed ta-complements do not exist
arises, given that dependent ta-complements nonetheless exist; see (19). Second, as seen in
the column under [−T, +Infl], we do not seem to find an untensed complement allowing
ru/ta-alternation. Put another way, it is somewhat hard to imagine an example in which, say,an aspectual verb’s complement allows -ta as well as -ru. These gaps in the paradigms seemto suggest that the ru-form of a verb is default morphology and that the minus value of [T]triggers it. Then the fact that no untensed ta-complements can be found is accounted for.
Notice, however, that under the variant of Landau style typology that I am considering, [T]
and [Infl] are assumed to be independent variables. Then it is never clear why the material
implication “if T° is [−T] then T° is [−Infl]” should hold in Japanese. In fact, a similar
observation might apply to English: implicatives (e.g. manage), aspectuals (e.g., begin) andmodals (e.g., be able), which select [−T], do not seem to allow finite complements. I cannot
afford to explore the issue any further here. I, instead, continue to use [T] and [Infl] as
independent features, keeping to the criterion according to which a T head is specified [−Infl]
if and only if either -ru or -ta is blocked.
4.2.

OC Complements Containing No Tense Marker[Infl] can be proved to be useful, independently from the data discussed above, bylooking at OC environments in which neither -ru nor -ta occurs. There are two such classes ofcomplement. One includes the so-called mood constructions, where complements contain amood marker and exclude a tense marker. (28) is an example of decisive mood complement,and (29) an imperative mood complement. They involve OC, and an overt tense marker does
not occur with those mood markers [(28b)/(29b)].8

8See Fujii (2010) and references cited therein.

- 12 -

The Calculus of Control and Lack of Overt Agreement Morphology (T. Fujii)(28) a. Mari-wa yasai-otabe-yootoMari-Top vegetable-Acc eat-Decisive C

omotta.
thought‘Mary thought she would eat vegetables.’b. * Mari-wa

yasai-otabe-ru-yoo
toeat-Prs-Decisive(29) a. Mari-wa Hiroshi-ni
Mari-Top Hiroshi-dat

omotta.

yasai-otabe-roto itta.
vegetable-Acc eat-Imperative C said

‘Mary told Hiroshi that he should eat vegetables.’b. * Mari-wa

Hiroshi-ni

yasai-otabe-ru-ro
toeat-Prs-Imperativeitta.

The other class of complements lacking overt tense marking includes various complex
predicate constructions.9 (30) exemplifies implicative, aspectual and modal constructions. In
these constructions involving “bare clausal complements”, the head of a complement clause isa bare verbal root and is morpho-phonologically integrated with the matrix verb. Thus, there
is no room for a tense marker to occur in between the first verb and the second verb [(30b)].
(30) a. Mari-wa yasai-otabeMari-Top vegetable-Acc eat{-wasure,{-forget-hazime,-begin-rare} -ta.
-can -Pst‘Mari {forgot, began, was able} to eat vegetables.’b. * Mari-wa

yasai-otabe-ru {-wasure,eat-Prs {-forget-hazime,-begin-rare} -ta.
-can -Pst

OC complements of these two classes thus don’t even have a chance to exhibit ru/ta
alternation. Hence the T° heads of them are all specified [−Infl] straightforwardly.
Now let’s look at how their semantic tense behaves. Under the Landau-style typology, it
will not be surprising if these complements are tensed, because they, being [−Infl], alreadyqualify to be OC environments. In fact, many of these non-overtly-tense-marked
complements are tensed. The mood complements exhibit a property of dependent tense. A
tense mismatch is allowed both with the embedded decisive [(31)] and the embedded
imperative [(32)]. Many bare complements are untensed [(33)]. Bare dependent tensecomplements, however, exist as well: the complement of the desiderative adjective -tai ‘want’
is clearly irrealis [(34)].

9

See Kageyama (1993), Koizumi (1995), Bobalijk and Wurmbrand (2005, 2007), Kuroda (2003),
among others.

- 13 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012(31)

Mari-wa asita
yasai-otabe-yooto kinooomotta.
Mari-Top tomorrow vegetable-Acc eat-Decisive C yesterday thought‘Yesterday Mary thought she will eat vegetables tomorrow.’(32)

Mari-wa
Mari-Top
kinoo
yesterday

Hiroshi-ni asita
yasai-otabe-roHiroshi-dat tomorrow vegetable-Acc eat-Imperative
itta.
said

to
C

‘Yesterday Mary told Hiroshi that he should eat vegetable tomorrow.’(33)* kinooMari-wa asita
yasai-otabe {-wasure, -hazime, -rare} -ta.
yesterday Mari-Top tomorrow vegetable-Acc eat {-forget -begin -can -Pst
‘Yesterday Mari {forgot, began, was able} to eat vegetables tomorrow.’

(34)

kinoo
Mari-wa asita
yasai-otabe-takat-ta.
yesterday Mari-Top tomorrow vegetable-Acc eat-want-Pst‘Yesterday Mari wanted to eat vegetables tomorrow.’

All these data taken together, the table can be updated as in (35):(35)[−T, −Infl]• Untensed• uninflected• infinitives, etc.

• Untensed• ru-complements,• Untensed bare
• complements

Obligatory control[+T, −Infl][−T, +Infl]• Tensed infinitives,• Hebrew 3rd-person• subjunctives,• Brazilian Portuguese• finite clauses, etc.
• Dependent ru- and• ta-complements,• Dependent mood• complements,• Dependent bare
• complements• Balkan untensed• subjunctives, etc.

No control[+T, +Infl]• English indicatives,• Balkan tensed• subjunctives, etc.

• Independent• ru/ta-complements

This way, we have successfully put five Japanese OC environments and one non-control
environment in the Landau-Nunes/BH&N style ‘calculus of control’ table.
5.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the present paper has shown (i) that due to the lack of overt agreement
morphology, Japanese poses a potential problem for the calculus of control (Landau 2004,
2006, Nunes 2008, BH&N); and (ii) that the theory can be made to work by assuming that
[Agr] (or [Infl]) is responsible for overt tense morphology as well. Despite the fact that the- 14 -

The Calculus of Control and Lack of Overt Agreement Morphology (T. Fujii)

exact relationship between semantic tense and overt tense morphology is left to be worked out
in the paper, the modification added here provides a way of dealing with agreement-lesslanguages of the Japanese type in the calculus of control.

References
Abusch, D. (2004) “On the Temporal Composition of Infinitives.” In J. Guéron and J. Lecarme, eds.,
The Syntax of Time, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 27–53.
Bobalijk, J. D. and S. Wurmbrand (2005) “The Domain of Agreement,” Natural Language &Linguistic Theory 23, 809–865.
Bobalijk, J. D. and S. Wurmbrand (2007) “Complex Predicates, Aspect, and Anti-Reconstruction,”
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 16, 27–42.
Boeckx, C., N. Hornstein and J. Nunes (2010) Control as Movement, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
Fujii, T. (2006) Some Theoretical Issues in Japanese Control, Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Maryland.
Fujii, T. (2008) “A ‘Non-Obligatory Complement’ Puzzle.” In C. Boeckx and S. Ulutas, eds.,
Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL4), MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics 56, Cambridge, Mass., 15–26.
Fujii, T. (2010) “Split control and the Principle of Minimal Distance.” In N. Hornstein and M.
Polinsky, eds., Movement Theory of Control, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 211–244.
Huang, C.-T. J. (1989) “Pro Drop in Chinese: A Generalized Control Approach.” In O. Jaeggli and K.
Safir, eds., The Null Subject Parameter, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 185–214.
Iatridou, S. (1993) “On Nominative Case Assignment and a Few Related Things.” In C. Phillips, ed.,Papers on Case and Agreement II, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19, Cambridge,
Mass., 175–196.
Kageyama, T. (1993) Bunpo to gokeisei [Grammar and word formation], Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo.
Koizumi, M. (1995) Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Kuno, S. (1973) The Structure of the Japanese Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1983) “What Can Japanese Say about Government and Binding.” In M. Barlow, D. P.
Flickinger and M. T. Wescoat, eds., Proceedings of the Second West Coast Conference inFormal Linguistics, Stanford Linguistics Association, Stanford, 153–164.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (2003) “Complex Predicates and Predicate Raising,” Lingua 113, 447–480.
Landau, I. (2000) Elements of Control: Structure and Meaning in Infinitive Constructions, Kluwer,
Dordrecht.
Landau, I. (2004) “The Scale of Finiteness and the Calculus of Control,” Natural Language &Linguistic Theory 22, 811–877.
Landau, I. (2006) “Severing the Distribution of PRO from Case,” Syntax 9, 43–60.
Nakau, M. (1973) Sentential Complementation in Japanese, Kaitakusha, Tokyo.
Nunes, J. (2008) “Inherent Case as a Licensing Condition for A-Movement: The Case ofHyper-Raising Constructions in Brazilian Portuguese,” Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 7,
83–108.
Ohso, M. (1976) A Study of Zero Pronominalization in Japanese, Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State
University.
Polinsky, M. and E. Potsdam (2006) “Expanding the Scope of Control and Raising,” Syntax 9,
171–192.

- 15 -

Nanzan Linguistics 8: Research Results and Activities 2011 ~ 2012

Saito, M. (1985) Some Asymmetries in Japanese and their Theoretical Implications, Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.
Sakaguchi, M. (1990) “Control Structures in Japanese.” In H. Hoji ed., Japanese and Korean
Linguistics 1, CSLI, Stanford, 303–317.
Terzi, A. (1992) PRO in Finite Clauses: A Study of the Inflectional Heads of the Balkan Languages,
Ph.D. dissertation, City University of New York.
Uchibori, A. (2000) The Syntax of Subjunctive Complements: Evidence from Japanese, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Ueda, M. (1990) Japanese Phrase Structure and Parameter Setting, Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Varlokosta, S. (1994) Issues on Modern Greek Sentential Complementation, Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Maryland.
Watanabe, A. (1996) “Control and Switch Reference,” ms., Kanda University of Foreign Studies,Japan.

- 16 -