Variable Binding and Scrambling out of Control Clauses
Keisuke Yoshimoto
Kobe City University of Foreign Studies
This paper aims to show that the contrast of variable binding in (1) which Takano (2010)
adduces in favour of the movement theory of control (e.g., Hornstein 1999) actually stems froma different factor than movement of the controller.
(1) a. ? Mittu-izyoo-no
daigakui-ni
Ken-ga sokoi-no sotugyoosei-ni
Three-or.more-GEN university-DAT Ken-NOM it-GEN
graduate-DAT[PRO ti syutugansuru yoo(ni)] susumeta.
PROapplyC
recommended(his 10a)‘To three or more universitiesi Ken recommended theiri graduates to apply.’b.?* Mittu-izyoo-no
daigakui-ni
sokoi-no sotugyoosei-ga Ken-ni
Three-or.more-GEN university-DAT it-GEN
graduate-NOM Ken-DAT[PRO ti syutugansuru yoo(ni)] susumeta.
PROapplyC
recommended(his 14a)‘To three or more universitiesi theiri graduates recommended Ken to apply.’
In both of the sentences above, the embedded object mittu-izyoo-no daigaku ‘three or more
universities’ is preposed to the sentence initial position; but it is only in (1a) that the pronounsoko ‘it’ is interpreted as a variable bound by the scrambled quantifier phrase (henceforth QP).
Since the only difference between (1a) and (1b) is that the pronoun is contained in the controller
in the former but not in the latter, Takano suggests that the generalization in (2) holds.
(2) Scrambling out of a control clause makes variable binding possible only if thepronominal is contained in the controller.
Takano further argues that (2) can be captured only if (i) scrambling out of a control clausepatterns with scrambling out of a finite clause, and (ii) obligatory control is derived bymovement of the controller. In this light, let us observe the derivation of (1a) in (3) whereby Y
stands for the QP and X the controller (angled brackets show traces/copies).
(3) Y-DAT Z-NOM X-DAT [ <Y><X><Y> V ]

V

If scrambling out of a control clause is the same as scrambling out of a finite clause,
long-distance scrambling of Y cannot create a binding relation with X in the matrix clause.
Rather, he argues that it is <Y> on the edge of the embedded clause that creates a binding
relation with the pronoun contained in the controller <X> which is assumed to originate within
the embedded clause in line with the movement theory of control.
In opposition to Takano’s analysis, I suggest that the contrast in (1) stems from theinteractions of the claims in (4).
(4) a. Clause-internal scrambling of the direct object over the indirect object is A-movement
while that over the subject is Ā-movement.
b. Long-distance scrambling out of a control clause patterns with clause-internal
scrambling.
c. Scrambling cyclically targets phase edges.
1(4a) is a proposal by Tada (1993) and (4b) by Nemoto (1993). (4c) is proposed by Hiraiwa(2010). Of particular importance is that, as a corollary of (4a), a contrast similar to (1) results ina simplex sentence. This is illustrated in (5).
(5) a.

Mittu-izyoo-no
daigakui-o
Ken-ga sokoi-no sotugyoosei-ni ti
Three-or.more-GEN university-ACC Ken-NOM it-GEN
graduate-DATsusumeta.
recommended‘Three or more universitiesi Ken recommended to theiri graduates.’b.?? Mittu-izyoo-no
daigakui-osokoi-no sotugyoosei-ga Ken-ni ti
Three-or.more-GEN university-ACC it-GEN
graduate-NOM Ken-DAT
susumeta.
recommended‘Three or more universitiesi theiri graduates recommended to Ken.’Let us assume that the QP is scrambled to the edge of vP first by (4c), and that the edge of vP isan A-position in line with (4a). If so, the observed contrast is considered to arise from the factthat the pronoun is contained in the indirect object in the former whereby it can be bound by theintermediate step of scrambling of the QP, whereas it is not contained in the indirect object inthe latter.
This analysis can be extended to long-distance scrambling out of a control clause, given(4b). Uchibori (2000) argues that control clauses do not constitute a phase. If so, long-distancescrambling of the embedded object QP directly targets the edge of the matrix vP (withouttransiting through the embedded Spec of CP). Considering that the edge of vP is an A-position,
it follows that a pronoun can be bound by an intermediate step of scrambling of the QP only if
it is contained in the indirect object. In this light, let us observe the derivation of (1) which isillustrated in the skeletal form in (6).
(6)(Ⅱ) scrambling(Ⅰ) scrambling[CP QP-DAT [TP X-NOM [vP <QP> Y-DAT [CP PRO <QP> V] V]]]ĀA

What (6) shows is that a pronoun is bound by the intermediate copy of the QP if it is containedin the indirect object Y but it cannot if it is contained in the subject X. In the case of object
control configurations, Y happens to be the controller, but this does not necessarily suggest
movement of the controller, because the contrast of variable binding in (1) can be considered toarise from the general nature of scrambling.
References: [1] Hiraiwa, K. 2010. Scrambling to the edge. Syntax 13: 133-164. [2] Hornstein,N. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69-96. [3] Nemoto, N. 1993. Chains
and Case positions: A study from scrambling in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, University ofConnecticut, Storrs. [4] Tada, H. 1993. A/A-bar partition in derivation. Doctoral dissertation,MIT, Cambridge, MA. [5] Takano, Y. 2010. Scrambling and control. Linguistic Inquiry 41:
83-110. [6] Uchibori, A. 2000. The syntax of subjunctive complements: Evidence fromJapanese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
2