Near-final draft of a chapter in Movement Theory of Control, ed. by Norbert Hornstein and Maria
Polinsky, John Benjamins, 2010, pp.211-244.

Split Control and the Principle of Minimal Distance*
Tomohiro Fujii
Yokohama National University

1

Introduction

This chapter studies two properties that are quite often considered as diagnosing obligatory control(OC) in the literature: (i) the ban on split control (discussed by Williams 1980, Koster and May 1982,
Lebeaux 1984, Martin 1996, Hornstein 1999, 2001, 2003, Wurmbrand 2001, Landau 2000, Madigan
2008, among others) and (ii) the effect of the Principle of Minimal Distance (PMD) (proposed by
Rosenbaum 1970 and discussed by Larson 1991, Martin 1996, Mazini and Roussou 2000, Hornstein
1999, 2001, 2003, Boeckx and Hornstein 2003, 2004, Landau 2000, 2003, Culicover and Jackendoff
2001, Davies and Dubinsky 2004, to list a few). Here are some illustrations of the two properties.1(1) a. * John ordered Bill [Δ to wash each other]b.

John ordered Bill that they should wash each otherc.

John told Bill that [∆ washing each other] would be fun(2) a. * John told Mary [∆ to wash himself]b.

John told Mary that he would wash himself

c.

John told Mary that [∆ washing himself] would be fun

In (1)a, the null subject of the embedded infinitival clause cannot be bound by the matrix subject andthe matrix indirect object at the same time, which is signaled by the exclusion of each other (whichneeds a plural antecedent). This restriction is not observed with the subject of finite clauses as in (1)bor with the null subject of non-obligatory control (NOC) clauses as in (1)c. Hence, the ban on split
control has been considered by some researchers a diagnostic property of OC.
1

(2)a illustrates the effect of the PMD, which requires that the null controllee be bound by the closer
potential antecedent. The presence of an intervener such as the indirect object Mary in (2)a, it is argued,
leads the sentence to ungrammaticality. This minimality condition does not have to be respected forbinding of the subject of finite clauses [(2)b] and binding of NOC PRO [(2)c].
The ban on split antecedence and the PMD effect seem to be highly controversial OC diagnostic
properties. Consider the PMD effect first. A famous potential counterargument has to do with verbs
like promise. Unlike (2)a, (3) is judged as acceptable even though the closer potential antecedent isskipped.
(3)

John promised Mary [∆ to wash himself]

Some proponents of the PMD claim that Mary in (2)a and Mary in (3) have different structures.
Hornstein (2001: 64, footnote 19) and Boeckx and Hornstein (2003) propose a ‘null P’ analysis, where
it is claimed that the indirect object of the promise construction does not block the local control chain
in the same way as the experiencer PP of the raising seem-construction does not; cf. John seems to
Mary t to be happy (see Davies and Dubinsky 2004 for a critique).
The issue of split control is more complicated in that, as far as English data are concerned, there
seems to be little consensus in the recent literature on what the correct generalization is. To see how
this is so, we need to begin by looking at the distinction between partial control and split control,
which is extensively discussed in Landau 2000. According to Landau, partial control is a process likethe following: OC PRO takes a single, singular antecedent, but a certain kind of plurality is involved in
the interpretation of the empty category. (This fact concerning partial control is first observed in
Williams 1980: 218, who attributes the observation to Debbie Nanni.) As an illustration, consider (4)(from Landau 2000: 44).
(4)

John1 wanted PRO1+ to meet at 6

There are two facts that the example shows: First, the example is acceptable. Second, the sentence2means: John wants it to be true that he and someone else meet at 6, as indicated by “1+” in Landau’s
notation. Monadic collective predicates like meet require that their subject denote plurality, andcrucially, such predicates do not need a syntactically plural subject. In other words, semanticallygroup-denoting NPs sufficiently meet the ‘plurality’ restriction on the subject of those predicates (cf.
The committee met at 6). In (4), a singular antecedent controls PRO, which ends up denoting a group.
Note that when the reciprocal each other is added, the sentence becomes unacceptable.
(5)* John wanted PRO to meet each other at 6

Predicates like meet each other, unlike collective predicates like meet, require their subject to besyntactically plural. Given this, the contrast between (4) and (5) tells us that the unacceptability of thelatter sentence is attributable to the fact that syntactically plural OC PRO is bound by a singularantecedent. Landau’s (2000) claim that there is a genuine phenomenon of partial control has been
accepted in the recent literature (see Hornstein 2003 and Culicover and Jackendoff 2005: 460, among
others).2
Given Landau’s characterization of partial control, split control can be defined as follows:syntactically plural PRO is bound by two different, singular antecedents (in the simplest case) . Noticethat the unacceptability of (5) does not necessarily mean that OC PRO cannot have split antecedents.
In this example, simply no additional antecedent exists. There are two general views about theexistence of the phenomenon. It is often claimed, based on the unacceptability of sentences like (1)a,that split control is prohibited in English (Williams 1980, Bouchard 1984, Koster 1984, Lebeaux 1984,
Hornstein and Lightfoot 1987, Franks and Hornstein 1992, Hornstein 2003: 65, footnote 13, to list afew). This classical view is challenged by Landau (2000), who observes that examples such as (6)b((6)=Landau’s (79), p.53), are possible. (The possibility of split control is also noted by Koster andMay 1982.)(6) a. * John told Mary that he preferred to meet each other at 6b.

John proposed to Mary to meet each other at 63

As noted above, the reciprocal anaphor makes the predicate require a plural subject. Landau’s pair ofsentences shows that the ‘plurality’ requirement in question is satisfied in (6)b, where two singular NPs
are available in the clause immediately higher than the control clause. When one of those NPs is
excluded from the ‘control’ domain, plural PRO is not licensed any more. In the a-example, Mary
would have to control PRO long distance, as Landau observes.
While claiming that OC PRO can support split antecedents, Landau observes that examples like (7)are unacceptable. Since there are two potential controllers in the matrix clause, OC PRO should be able
to be split-controlled, all other things being equal.
(7)* Maryi recommended to/ordered Johnj [PROi+j to cooperate with each other]

He notes that “[u]nlike propose and ask, recommend and order do not allow split control — for
obvious reasons, given that in order to engage in some action, one does not recommend to/order otherpeople to do it.” (p. 55). Landau seems to have concluded that the source of unacceptability found incases like (7) is independent from the grammatical nature of OC PRO.
The goal of this chapter is as follows: First, I show that split control is possible in a certain
environment based on Japanese data and that the (im)possibility of split control correlates with moodmeaning: it is possible only when control clauses are interpreted or typed as the exhortative. Second, I
point out that a certain sentence mood that appears to be semantically and pragmatically coherent does
not exist. The PMD proves useful to explain the absence of the unattested mood particle. Third, ananalysis of split control will be given that is compatible with the claim that the PMD or minimality isrespected in the grammar.
The chapter is organized as follows: section 2 attempts to document the relevant data to the main
issues. Basic properties of embedded imperative constructions and those of what we call decisive
constructions are laid out. In section 3, the data pertaining to split control are introduced. It is shownthat sentences whose null subject is analyzed as split-controlled are obligatory control constructions.
Section 4 attempts to provide a possible analysis of split control constructions and explore its
4

consequences. Section 5 concludes the chapter.

2

Mood Particles and Obligatory Control

2.1 Decisives and Imperatives

This section introduces preliminary data concerning two mood particles triggering OC. The discussionof these mood particles will become useful when we identify under what conditions split control isallowed. The particles of interest here include -e/-ro on the one hand, and -yoo/-oo on the other. The
examples given in (8) illustrate the two mood constructions.3(8) a.

(boku-wa) beeguru-o tabe-yoo
I-Topbagel-Acc eat-YOO‘I’ll eat bagels.’b.

(kimi-wa)

beeguru-o tabe-ro

You-Top

bagel-Acc eat-Imp‘You eat bagels!’(8)b is an imperative sentence and contains the imperative mood marker -ro. The particle -(y)oo can betranslated as ‘intend to’ or ‘decide to’ in cases like those cited in (8)a. I dub this use of -(y)oo the‘decisive’. 4 As we will see in section 3, there is another use of the same particle, which ispragmatically different from the use seen in (8)a. Not to prejudice which use a particular instance of-(y)oo falls under, I gloss -(y)oo simply as “YOO” in this chapter.
A rough semantic and pragmatic characterization of the particles found in (8) is in order. It isuseful to appeal to the notions of ‘To-Do LIST’ and of discourse participants such as ‘speaker’ and‘addressee’, along the lines of Portner (2004). Portner proposes that imperative sentences represent a
To-Do LIST, which is defined as a set of properties and that “[t]he conventional force of imperatives,
5

what we can call Requesting, is to add the property denoted by the imperative to the addressee’s To-Do
LIST” (Portner 2004; see also Portner and Zanuttini 2005). For instance, leave! denotes the property ofleaving and this property is placed on the addressee’s To-Do LIST. In this light, the conventional forceof the decisive is to add the relevant property to the speaker’s To-Do LIST.5 This is why (8)a and (8)bhave the translations they have.
As for the syntax of these particles, I assume throughout the chapter that they are heads of Mood
Phrases and that no Case for the subject of these clauses is available inside the domain of MoodP (seeHasegawa 1981, Watanabe 1996 for relevant discussion). Whether or not TP is projected below Mooddoes not really matter, but nothing seems to prevent one from adopting an analysis where MP
dominates TP.6
Now we turn to embedding of these mood constructions. Being headed by the complementizer -to,they can occur in the complement position of a verb.
(9) a.

Taro-wa

boku-no beeguru-oTaro-Top mybagel-Acc

tabe-yoo-tokeikakusita

eat-YOO-C

planned‘Taro planned to eat my bagel.’b.

Yoko-wa

Hiroshi-ni

boku-no beeguru-o tabe-ro-to meireisita

Yoko-Top Hiroshi-Dat mybagel-Acc eat-Imp-C ordered‘Yoko ordered Hiroshi to eat my bagel.’
It has been always an issue whether embedded clauses found in examples like these involve realembedding, i.e. whether they involve indirect speech or not. As Han (1998/2000: 159) noted, Japanese
seems to allow imperatives to be embedded. At this point, it suffices to recognize that when a moodclause is embedded, To-Do LISTs are relative to the speaker and the addressee of the indirect speech.
In section 2.3, I will argue that these sentences involve indirect quotation, rather than direct quotation.

2.2 Diagnostic Properties of OC

6

This section applies some OC diagnostics to embedded mood clauses to show that they are obligatory
control clauses.7
First, the null subject of the embedded mood construction under consideration requires anantecedent, and the antecedent is uniquely determined. The null subject of embedded decisive
sentences and imperative sentences necessarily corefers to the matrix subject and the matrix indirect
object, respectively. In the decisive construction given in (10)a, a Condition B effect is observed,
which suggests that Δ must be bound by Hiroshi. Likewise, Δ in the imperative construction given in(10)b is necessarily bound by the matrix indirect object, Yoko.
(10) a.

Hiroshii-wa
Hiroshi-Top[Δ {?? karei/zibuni}-o hihansi-yoo-to]
him/self-Acc{omotta/kessinsita}

criticize-YOO-C thought/decided‘Hiroshii {thought of criticizing/ decided to criticize} {??himi, selfi}.’b.

Hiroshii-wa

Yokoj-ni [Δ {karei/??kanozyoj/zibuni/j}-o hihansi-ro-to]

Hiroshi-Top Yoko-Dat

he/she/self-Acc{itta/meireisita}

criticize-Imp-C

said/ordered‘Hiroshii {said to/ordered} Yokoj to criticize {himi, ??herj, selfi/j}.’Second, the null subject of the mood clauses must be c-commanded by its antecedent. The
difference between (11)a and (11)b below demonstrates that the subject of the embedded decisiveclause, unlike that of a regular finite clause, must be c-commanded by its antecedent.
(11) a. * kyoodai-no

titioya-wa [Δ otagai-o home-a-oo-to]brothers-Gen father-Top [omot-tei-ta

e.o-Acc praise-Recip-YOO-C] think-Asp-Past‘The brothers’ father thought to praise each other.’b.

kyoodaii-no

titioyaj-wa[Δi otagai-o home-a-u-to]brothers-Gen father-Top [omot-tei-ta

e.o-Acc praise-Recip-Prs-C] think-Asp-Past‘The brothers’ father thought that they would praise each other.’
The same c-command restriction holds for embedded imperative clauses. The genitive NP inside alarger NP cannot serve as an antecedent for the subject of an embedded imperative while it can for the
subject of a finite clause headed by bekida ‘should’.
7

(12) a. * Taro-wa

sono hutago-no hahaoya-ni [Δ otagai-oTaro-Top thetwins-Gen mother-Dat [e.o-Accsonkeisi-a-e-to]ittarespect-Recip-Imp-C] said

‘Taro told the twinsi’ mother to respect each otheri.’b.

Taro-wa sono hutago-no hahaoyaj-ni [Δ otagai-o sonkeisi-a-u-bekida-to]
Taro-Top thetwins-Gen mother-Dat [ittae.o.-Acc respect-Recip-Prs-should-C] said

‘Taro told the twinsi’ mother theyi should respect each otheri.’
Third, Japanese embedded mood constructions disallow long distance antecedents in the same way
as standard OC constructions do.
(13) a. * karera-wa [Hiroshi-ni[Δ otagai-o naguri-a-oo-to]

they-Top [Hiroshi-Dat [omow]-ase-ta

e.o-Acc hit-Recip-YOO-C] think]-Caus-Past‘They made Hiroshi think to hit each other.’b.

karera-wa [Hiroshi-ni[Δ otagai-o naguri-a-u-to]

they-Top [Hiroshi-Dat [omw]-ase-ta

e.o-Acc hit-Recip-Pres-C] think]-Caus-Past‘They made Hiroshi think that they might hit each other.’In these examples, the causative morpheme -(s)ase takes a tenseless sentential complement in which
the verb ‘think’ takes as its complement a -to-clause.8 ∆ is one clause away from the subject of thecausative -sase and two clauses away from the highest subject. The pair of examples above shows thatthe lowest, null subject cannot take the highest subject as its antecedent when the most deeply
embedded predicate is marked with decisive, but it can when it is a regular finite one. The same
contrast holds between imperative clauses and finite clauses like the one headed by ‘should’.
(14) a. * karera-wa
they-Top[Yoko-niotto-ni[Δ otagai-o itawari-a-e-to][Yoko-Dat husband-Dat [it-te]

e.o.-Acc care-Recip-Imp-C to.say] wanted

lit. ‘Theyi wanted Yoko to tell her husband ∆i to be nice to each other.’b.

karerai-wa [Yoko-ni
they-Top
it-te]

otto-ni[Δi otagai-o itawari-a-u-bekida-to][Yoko-Dat husband-Dat [hosikatta

e.o.-Acc care-Recip-Prs-should-C]

hosikatta

to.say] wanted‘They wanted Yoko to tell her husband that they should be nice to each other.’8This locality restriction is totally expected if the null subjects in (13)a and (14)a are OC PROs.
Fourth, the null subject of the mood clauses, like standard OC PRO, cannot function as a freevariable. Pronouns behave differently in this respect. Let us start with ambiguity having to do with only
NP antecedents. (15), which contains a regular finite complement with a null subject, is ambiguous
between the interpretations indicated by (i) and (ii).
(15)

Hiroshii-dake-ga[proi siai-ni

Hiroshi-only-Nom [i.

kat-u-to]kangaeteiru

game-Dat win-Prs-C] think-Stat-Prs

Bound: ‘Hiroshi is the only x such that x thinks that x will win the game.’

ii. Coreference: ‘Hiroshi is the only x such that x thinks that Hiroshi will win the game.’
Pro can be interpreted as either a bound variable (as in (15)i, called a ‘bound’ interpretation) or a freevariable (as in (15)ii, called a ‘coreference’ interpretation). The following scenario is intended to makethe bound interpretation false and the coreference interpretation true. The fact that (15) can be utteredtruly in this situation shows that pro allows a coreference reading.
(16)

Hiroshi: “I’m sure I will win my game.”
Atsuko: “I’m sure I will win my game. I don’t think Hiroshi will win his game.”
Yoko: “I doubt that Hiroshi will win his game.”

The null subjects of embedded decisives and imperatives disallow such readings. Consider thedecisive first.
(17)

Hiroshii-dake-ga[Δi siai-ni

Hiroshi-only-Nom [kat-oo-to]kangaeteiru

game-Dat win-YOO-C] thinks‘Hiroshi thinks to win the game.’i.

Bound: ‘Hiroshi is the only x such that x thinks that x will win the game.’ii. * Coreference: Hiroshi is the only x such that x thinks that Hiroshi will win the game’
The following scenario, in which Hiroshi, Atsuko and Yoko are the relevant individuals, makes thecoreference interpretation true and the bound one false.
(18)

Hiroshi: “I’m gonna win my game.”
9Atsuko: “I will win my game. I don’t think Hiroshi will even try to.
Yoko: “I wanna win my game, of course. Hiroshi? I’m not sure he is interested in winning his
game.”
Statement (17) is rejected here. This shows that the statement does not have the coreference
interpretation. Hence, we conclude that Δ cannot act like a pronoun. If it is OC PRO, the judgment
obtained here is not surprising. The same is found with embedded imperatives.
(19) a.

John-wa

Taro-dake-ni[Δ Izu-ni ik-e-to]

John-Top Taro-only-Dat [itta

Izu-to go-Imp-C] said

‘John told only Taro that he should go to Izu.’ (John told only Taro, “You go to Izu!”)b.

John-wa

Taroi-dake-ni[proi Izu-ni ik-u-bekida-to]

John-Top Taro-only-Dat [itta

Izu-to go-Prs-should-C] said

‘John told only Taroi that hei should go to Izu.’(20) i.

Bound: Only Taro is an x such that John told x that x should go to Izu.
[Ok with both (19)a and (19)b]

ii. Coreference: Only Taro is an x such that John told x that Taro should go to Izu.
[Not possible with (19)a and ok with (19)b](19)a, where the imperative mood marker occurs, and (19)b, where the finite auxiliary bekida ‘should’
occurs, are contrasted.
The asymmetry between bound variable and free variable interpretations for decisive andimperative subjects can be illustrated on the basis of their behavior in ellipsis contexts as well. The
subject of an embedded decisive does not allow a strict reading in ‘stripping’ while that of a regular
finite clause does. (See Hoji 1990 for extensive discussion about the ellipsis phenomenon in question.)(21) A: Atsuko-wa
Atsuko-Top[∆ kasyu-ni[

singer-Cop{a. nar-oo/
become-YOO

b. nar-u}-to]omotteiru

become-Prs-C] thinks‘Atsukoi {is thinking of becoming, expects that shei will become} a singer.’
B: Hiroshi-modaHiroshi-even Cop‘Hiroshi, as well.’
10When the utterance in (21)B follows that in (21)A-a, it cannot mean: Hiroshi expects that Atsuko will
become a singer. When it follows (21)A-b, in contrast, the sentence is ambiguous. The imperative
construction works in the same way except that it is object control.
(22) A: John-wa

Taro-ni[Δ Izu-ni {a. ik-e/

John-Top Taro-Dat [Izu-tob. ik-u-bekida}-to]go-Impgo-Prs-should-C]

itta
said

‘John told Taro to go to Izu.’‘John told Taro {to go, that he should go} to Izu.’
B: Hiroshi-ni-modaHiroshi-Dat-even Cop‘Hiroshi, as well.’When the embedded predicate contains an imperative head [(22)A-a], the strict reading is extremely
difficult. With the finite auxiliary ‘should’ [(22)A-b], the strict reading and the sloppy reading are
equally available.
Fifth, it has been accepted in the literature that OC PRO can only support a de se interpretation
while pronouns allow a non-de se interpretation. Now consider examples of embedded decisives likethe one given in (23).
(23)

Hiroshi-wa[Δ gaikoku-ni

Hiroshi-Top[

ik-oo-to]omotteiru

foreign country-to go-YOO-C] thinks‘Hiroshi thinks of going abroad.’Suppose that Hiroshi plans to go abroad. He had already got his passport and recently obtained a visa.
One day, he goes drinking and comes home very drunk. He finds the passport on the table, and does
not remember that it is his passport with his picture, along with the visa he had gotten from theembassy. Looking at the picture, he thinks: “I don’t know who this guy is, but he seems to be planningto go abroad soon. I wish I could, too!” In this non-de se context, (23) cannot be uttered felicitously. In
contrast, (24), whose embedded predicate has the simple present tense form, allows for a reading
compatible with this situation.
11

(24)

Hiroshi-wa[Δ gaikoku-ni

Hiroshi-Top [ik-u-to]omotteiru

foreign country-to go-Prs-C] thinks‘Hiroshi thinks he will go abroad.’
The subject of embedded -yoo-clause, like standard OC PRO, cannot receive a non-de seinterpretation.

2.3 Δ ≠ Null Equivalent of Overt Indexicals

Before we go on, one potentially interfering factor needs to be considered. How do we make sure thatembedded decisive and imperative clauses do not involve direct quotation?9 If the subject of direct
quotes behaved in exactly the way that null subjects of mood clauses behave, our claim that they are
occurrences of OC PRO would be weakened. First, root decisives and imperatives require first andsecond person subjects, respectively.
(25) a.

∆ Izu-ni ik-oo-tto
Izu-to go-YOO-Clause Final Particle‘{I’m, *You’re, *He’s, ..} gonna go to Izu.’

b.

∆ Izu-ni ik-e
Izu-to go-Imp‘{You, *me, *John}, go to Izu!’

Note also that, whether they are embedded or not, indexicals in Japanese are often null. In fact, true
direct quotes seem to pass at least some of the diagnostics that we use to argue that the subject ofembedded mood clauses is OC PRO. Remember for instance the context that was described when theimpossibility of a non-de se interpretation with ∆ was examined (see the paragraph surrounding (23)).
(26), which is a direct quote, cannot be uttered to describe the same situation. The first person
expression ore ‘I’ requires that what is quoted be Hiroshi’s direct thought. This is exactly the way OC
PRO differs from pronouns with respect to this diagnostic.
12

(26)

Hiroshi-wa[[ore-wa gaikoku-ni

Hiroshi-Top [[I-Topiku]to] omotteiru

foreign country-to go.Prs C] thinks‘Hiroshi thinks: “I will go abroad”.’
For these reasons, it needs to be shown that embedded decisives and imperatives can involve indirect
quotation.
It turns out that subordinate decisive and imperative clauses do not have to be direct quotes. First,
long distance wh-movement cannot originate inside and take scope outside a direct speech. When aquote contains a first person noun phrase that refers to the author of the speech, a wh-phrase cannot
appear inside.10(27)* Hiroshii-ga[orei-wa doko-ni ik-u(-zo)

Hiroshi-Nom [I-Top

to] itta-no

where-to go-Prs-Part C] said-Q‘What place is x such that Hiroshi said, “I will go to x”?’
Embedded decisive clauses with a null subject can contain a wh-element that undergoes long distanceassociation with an interrogative C.
(28)

Hiroshii-ga[∆i doko-ni ik-oo-to]

Hiroshi-Nom [itta/kimeta-no

where-to go-YOO-C] said/decided-Q‘What place is x such that Hiroshi said/decided that he would go to x?’
Hence, the embedded clause with -(y)oo at least can be an indirect quote. Another way to show that weare dealing with indirect quotation is with a third person pronoun referring back to the author oraddressee of the report. This forces the embedded clause to be an indirect quote. ‘He’ inside a direct
quote cannot be coreferential with the speaker or the hearer of the main utterance.
(29)* Hiroshii-ga[bokui-wa karei-no ie-o

Hiroshi-Nom [I-Top

his

u-ru-zo]

to kangaeteiru

house-Acc sell-Prs-Part] C thinks‘Hiroshii thinks: “Ii will buy hisi house.”’As in (30), the embedded mood particle can co-occur with kare ‘he’, which is coindexed with a matrix
element.
(30)

Hiroshii-ga[∆ karei-no

ie-o

ur-oo-to]13

kangaeteiru

Hiroshi-Nom [hishouse-Acc sell-YOO-Prs-C thinks‘Hiroshi thinks of selling hisi house.’
Likewise, when the author or addressee of the quoted speech differs from the actual speaker orhearer (of the main utterance), using first or second person expressions in the quote forces it to beindirect speech.
(31)* John said, “I(actual speaker) am a hero.”

The embedded decisive and imperative constructions in (32), which contain indexicals that refer to the
speaker or hearer of the actual context, are perfectly acceptable.
(32) a.

Hiroshii-ga[∆i boku-no ie-o

Hiroshi-Nom [myka-oo-to]kangaeteiru

house-Acc buy-YOO-Prs-C] thinks‘Hiroshi thinks of buying my(=the actual speaker) house.”’b.

Hiroshi-ga

Yokoi-ni [∆i kimi-no ie-o

Hiroshi-Nom Yoko-Dat [yourka-e-to]meizitahouse-Acc buy-Imp-Prs-C] ordered‘Hiroshi ordered Yoko to buy your(=the actual hearer) house.’
Therefore, we are not necessarily dealing with root phenomena in looking at these mood constructions.
These subordinate sentences can be indirect speech.
The patterns of judgments concerning the OC diagnostics that have been used in section 2.2 remain
the same even when the possibility of direct quotation is eliminated. Some of the data are presented
below.
(33) a. * sono kyoodai-no titioya-wa [Δ otagai-o dokode home-a-oo-to]that brother-Gen father-Top [omotteita-no

e.o-Acc where praise-Recip-YOO-C] thought-Q‘Where did the brothers’ father think [to praise each other t]?’b. * keikan-wa

sono kyoodai-no

titioyaj-ni [Δ otagai-o dokode home-a-e-to]policeman-Top that brother-Gen father-Top [e.o-Acc where

praise-Recip-Imp-C]

meireisi-ta-noorder-Past-Q‘Where did the police officer order the brother’s father [to praise each other t]?’14

(34) a. * karera-wa [Yoko-ni

otto-ni[Δ otagai-othey-Top [Yoko-Dat husband-Dat [it-te]

doregurai itawari-a-e-to]e.o.-Acc how much care-Recip-Imp-C]

hosikatta-no

to.say] wanted-Q‘How nice did they want Yoko to tell her husband ∆ to be t to each other?’b. * karera-wa [Yoko-ni[Δ otagai-o doregurai itawari-a-oo-to]

they-Top [Yoko-Dat [omotte-te] hosikatta-no

e.o.-Acc how much care-Recip-YOO-C] to.think]wanted-Q‘How nice did they want Yoko to think of ∆ being t to each other?’(35) A: Johni-wa

Taro-niJohn-Top Taro-Dat[Δ karei-no ie-ni[

his

ik-e-to]itta

house-to go-Imp-C] said

‘Johni told Taroj to go to hisi house.’(36) A: Yoko-wa

Johni-ni[Δ karei-no ie-ni

Yoko-Top John-dat [his

ik-oo-to]omow-ase-ta

house-to go-YOO-C] think-Caus-Past‘Yoko made Johni think of going to hisi house.’(37) B: Hiroshi-ni-modaHiroshi-Dat-also Cop‘Hiroshi, as well.’(33) and (34) show that the c-command condition and the ban on long distance control are respectedwith wh-in-situ placed within the mood clauses. (35)-(37) are examples relevant to the ellipsis test,
which contain a third person pronoun coreferential with a matrix element inside a mood clause. When(37)B follows (35)A or (36)A, the elliptical utterance can only mean, respectively, the property of
being told by John to go to John’s house applies to Hiroshi (as well as Taro), and the property of being
made by Yoko to think of going to John’s house applies to Hiroshi (as well as John).

3

Split Control and the Exhortative Use of -(y)oo15

3.1 Where Split Control is Licensed

Having established that decisive mood and imperative mood particles trigger OC, I would like to turnto split control in Japanese, which, to my knowledge, has not been discussed in the literature. As wewill see, the following seems to be the case: that null subjects of embedded clauses containing theimperative particle -ro/-e never allow split control, whereas null subjects of embedded clauses
containing the particle -(y)oo allow it under a certain interpretation. First, observe a minimal pair ofexamples in which imperative and -(y)oo-constructions are contrasted.
(38) a. * Taro-wa
Taro-Top

Hiroshi-ni[∆ otagai-o sonkeesi-a-e-to]

Hiroshi-Dat [itta/ meireisita

e.o.-Acc respect-Recip-Imp-C] said/ orderedlit. ‘Taro said to/ordered Hiroshi that ∆ respect-IMP each other.’b.

Taro-wa Hiroshi-ni[∆ otagai-oTaro-Top Hiroshi-Dat [sonkeesi-a-oo-to]itta/ teiansita

e.o.-Acc respect-Recip-YOO-C] said/ proposed

lit. ‘Taro said/proposed to Hiroshi that ∆ respect-YOO each other.’(38)a and (38)b only differ with respect to the kind of mood particle attached to the embedded verb.
The difference in meaning between these sentences can be made clearer by translating them into theversions with a direct quote. See (39)a and (39)b. The former is unacceptable.
(39) a. * Taro-wa Hiroshi-ni[kimi-wa

Taro-Top Hiroshi-Dat [you-Top

otagai-osonkeesi-a-e-yo!]

to ittae.o.-Acc respect-Recip-Imp-SFP] C said

‘Taro said to Hiroshi: “Respect each other!”’b.

Taro-wa

Hiroshi-ni[watasi-tati-wa otagai-o sonkeesi-a-imas-yoo]

Taro-Top Hiroshi-Dat [we-Top

to itta/teiansita

e.o.-Acc respect-Recip-Pol-YOO] C said/proposed‘Taro said to Hiroshi: “Let’s respect each other.”’
Notice that the use of -(y)oo in (38)b and (39)b is, meaning-wise, different from the use of what
appears to be the same particle in the decisive construction. The instance of -(y)oo found in theseexamples is associated with exhortation of a similar sort to that found with the English
let’s-construction. Nakau (1973: 38-39) already observed that this particle is ambiguous between two
16

uses.
(40) a.

Taro-wa boku-no beeguru-o tabe-yoo-tokeikakusita

Taro-Top myplannedbagel-Acc eat-YOO-C‘Taro planned to eat my bagel.’b.

Taro-wa Hanako-ni

boku-no beeguru-o tabe-yoo-to

Taro-Top Hanako-Dat mybagel-Acc eat-YOO-C

teiansita
proposed‘Taro proposed to Hanako to eat my bagel.’(40)a means that Taro had the plan to eat the actual speaker’s bagel. The sentence is a subject control
construction. (40)b roughly describes the situation in which Taro told Hanako: “Let’s eat that guy’s
bagel”, where “that guy” should be understood as the speaker of (40)b.
Recall that in section 2, we essentially followed Portner (2004) in characterizing the discourse
function of the decisive as follows: it is to add the property denoted by the VP to the To-Do LIST of
the speaker (of the reported speech). In the same vein, the function of the exhortative is to place therelevant property on the To-Do LIST of the addressee as well as that of the speaker of the reported
speech (Portner and Zanuttini 2005 and references cited therein). Take kaer-oo ‘let’s leave’ forexample. The property of leaving is added to the addressee’s To-Do LIST as well as the speaker’s own
To-Do LIST.
In the next subsection, I will show that examples like (38)b are an instance of split control rather
than partial control; that is, that the embedded subject is plural.

3.2 Reciprocal and Reflexive Predicates

To argue that examples like (38)b involve split control, one needs to show that the predicates in (38)aand (38)b are plural predicates. Hoji (1997) observes that the Japanese reciprocal otagai can take split
antecedents, citing examples like (41) (=Hoji’s 9b with the glosses slightly modified):(41)

Ieyasui-wa Nobunagaj-ni [Singen-ga

otagaii+j-o home-tei-ta-to]17tuge-taIeyasu-Top Nobunaga-Dat [Shingen-Nom e.o.-Acc

praise-Asp-Past-C] tell-Past‘Ieyasui told Nobunagaj that Shingen had been praising themi+j.’
If Hoji is right, one might think that examples like those in (38) show very little because ‘each other’itself does not require a plural subject. Curiously enough, when the embedded verb in (41) isreciprocalized, i.e. supplied with the verbal suffix -aw, the acceptability of the sentence drops
dramatically.11(42)* Ieyasu-wa Nobunaga-ni[Singen-ga

otagai-o home-at-teita-to]tuge-ta

Ieyasu-Top Nobunaga-Dat [Shingen-Nom e.o-Acc praise-Recip-Asp-Past-C] told
Intended meaning: ‘Ieyasui told Nobunagaj that Shingen had been praising themi+j.’
The generalization seems to be that when otagai appears inside a VP whose head is morphologicallyreciprocalized with -aw, the reciprocal anaphor requires a local plural binder. If this is the case, theacceptability of examples like (38)b, where the reciprocalizer is present, suggests that the null
embedded subject appearing in those examples is a plural noun phrase, taking the matrix subject andindirect object as its split antecedents.
Next, observe that when two local controllers are not available, the null subject of the-(y)oo-construction cannot support split antecedents (as Landau observes for English; see (6)).
(43) a. * Taro-wa

Hiroshi-ni[[kare-ga[∆

Taro-Top Hiroshi-Dat [[he-Nom [otagai-osonkeisi-a-oo-to]e.o.-Acc respect-Recip-YOO-C]{omotteiru/kessinsita}-koto]-o tugeta
thinks/decided-Ckoto]-Acc

told

Intended meaning: ‘Taroi told Hiroshij that hei {thought/ had decided} that theyi+j should
respect each other.’b.

Taroi-wa

otooto-ni[[karei-ga Hiroshij-ni [∆i+j otagai-o sonkeesi-a-oo-to]

Taro-Top brother-Dat [[he-Nom Hiroshi-Dat [itta/ teiansita-koto]-otugetasaid/ proposed-Ckoto]-Acc

tolde.o.-Acc respect-Recip-YOO-C]‘Taroi told his brother that hei had said/proposed to Hiroshij to respect each otheri+j.’
Though the relevant examples are inevitably complicated, there is a clear contrast between these two18

sentences. Given that ∆ requires split antecedents here, the contrast follows if the null subject does notallow long distance antecedents. In the acceptable (43)b, there are two local controllers present in theintermediate clause, while in the unacceptable (43)a, there is only one such antecedent.
One other thing that one can use to keep the embedded predicate a plural predicate is reflexive
predicates of a certain type. Consider the following pair of sentences that contain the expression X-no
kao-o sikameru ‘screw up X’s face’:(44) a.

Ieyasu-wa Nobunaga-ni[Shingen-ga{*otagai/*zibun-tati/!zibun}-no kao-o

Ieyasu-Top Nobunaga-Dat [Shingen-Nom
sikameta-to]e.o./self-Pl/self-Gen

face-Acc

tugetascrewed.up-C] told
lit. ‘Ieyasu told Nobunaga that Shingen had screwed up {*each other’s, *selves’, self’s} faceb.

Ieyasu-wa Nobunaga-ni[Shingen-to

Yoshimoto-ga

Ieyasu-Top Nobunaga-Dat [Shingen-and Yoshimoto-Nom{otagai/zibun-tati/zibun}-no kao-oe.o./self-Pl/self-Gen

sikameta-to]tugetaface-Acc screwed.up-C] told

lit. ‘Ieyasu told Nobunaga that Shingen and Yoshimoto had screwed up {each other’s, selves’,
self’s} face.’
The reflexive verb phrase in question seems to require the possessive to be non-distinct from thesubject with respect to person, number and gender, just like crane one’s neck in English. The reason
for the unacceptability of the versions of (44)a with otagai ‘each other’ and zibun-tati ‘self-Pl’ is thenthat the embedded subject does not match the possessive, at least in number.12
Note incidentally that this matching effect can also be observed for cases where overt pronouns
occupy the possessive position. The possessive position does not easily support overt pronouns likekare ‘he’ or karera ‘they’. But when we compare a case in which the subject of a reflexive predicate
and the possessive match in gender and/or number with one in which they do not, a very clear contrast
is obtained.
(45)

John-wa {a. *kanozyo-no/ b. ??kare-no} kao-o
19

sikameta

John-Top

her

his

face-Acc screwed up‘John screwed up {*her, ??his} face.’(46)

John-toBill-wa {a. *kare-no/ b. ??karera-no} kao-oJohn-and Bill-Top

his

their

sikameta

face-Acc screwed up‘John and Bill screwed up {*his, ??their} face.’
As indicated, the b-examples in (45) and (46) are far from perfect. This is probably because, as iscommon cross-linguistically, the possessive of inalienable possession nouns does not host overt
pronouns easily (Kayne 1975 for French, Cheng and Ritter 1988 for Chinese, Yoon 1989 for Korean,
Fujii 2000 for Japanese).13 It should be noted that when the possessive does not match the subject ingender and/or number, the sentences become hopeless, as in (45)a and (46)a.
Keeping these in mind, consider the following pair, which shows that controlled exhortative
subjects allow a plural possessive but controlled imperative ones do not:(47) a. * John-wa

Bill-ni[∆ {otagai/zibun-tati}-no kao-oJohn-Top Bill-Dat [e.o./self-Pl-Gen

sikame-ro-to]itta/meireisita

face-Acc screw up-Imp-C] said/orderedlit. ‘John said to/ordered Bill to screw up {each other’s, selves’} face.’
Intended meaning ≈ ‘John said to Bill: “Screw up our own face!”b.

John-wa

Bill-ni[∆ {otagai/zibun-tati}-no kao-oJohn-Top Bill-Dat [e.o./self-PL-Gen

sikame-yoo-to]itta/teiansita

face-Acc screw up-YOO-C] said/proposed

lit. ‘John said to/proposed to Bill to screw up their face.’≈ ‘John said to Mary: “Let’s screw up our own face!”(48) a. * John-wa Bill-ni[∆ karera-no kao-oJohn-Top Bill-Dat[

sikame-ro-to]itta/meireisita

their-Gen face-Acc screw up-Imp-C] said/orderedlit. ‘John said to/ordered Bill that ∆ screw up-Imp their face.’b.?? John-wa Bill-ni[∆ karera-no kao-oJohn-Top Bill-Dat [theirsikame-yoo-to]itta/teiansita

face-Acc screw up-YOO-C] said/proposed

lit. ‘John said to/proposed to Bill to screw up-YOO their face.’≈ ‘John said to Mary: “Let’s screw up our own face!”
The contrast between (48)a and (48)b suggests the following: the null subject of the imperative resists
20being bound by the matrix subject and the matrix indirect object [(48)a], whereas that of the-(y)oo-clause does not [(48)b]. Hence, split control is permitted in the latter sentence, but not in theformer.
The reflexive construction, just like the reciprocal construction, helps us show that the null subjectof exhortatives requires local antecedents when its antecedent has to be split.
(49) a. * Johni-wa Bill-ni[[karei-ga [∆ {otagai/zibun-tati}-no kao-oJohn-Top Bill-Dat[[he-Nom [e.o./self-Pl-Gen

sikame-yoo-to]

face-Acc screw.up-YOO-C]{omotteiru/kessinsita}-koto]-o tugeta
thinks/decided-Ckoto]-Acc

told‘Johni told Bill that hei {thought of respecting/ had decided to respect} each other.’b.

Johni-wa

otooto-ni[[karei-ga Billj-ni[∆i+j {otagai/zibun-tati}-no kao-oJohn-Top brother-Dat [[he-Nom Bill-Dat [sikame-yoo-to]itta/teiansita-koto]-oe.o./self-Pl-Gen

face-Acc

tugetascrew.up-YOO-C] said/proposed-Ckoto]-Acc told
‘Johni told his brother that hei had said/proposed to Billj to screw up theiri+j own face.’
The unacceptability of (49)a can be accounted for if the indirect object of the highest clause Bill cannot
control ∆ across the intermediate clause. Only ‘he’ is a legitimate controller. By contrast, example(49)b is expected to be grammatical since the intermediate clause has two controllers that together
satisfy the requirement that the reflexive VP have a plural subject.
We have studied reciprocalized predicates and reflexive predicates with plural possessives, forwhich the controlled subject is forced to be plural. In both circumstances, the sentence is grammatical
only if two local controllers are available and if the particle -(y)oo, though not the imperative particle,
is used. It is evident that split control is allowed when the control clause is associated with theexhortative meaning and prohibited when it is associated with the directive meaning.
(50)

Split control in mood clauses <=> mood = exhortative

Before proceeding to the next section, let us see if diagnostic properties of OC other than the ban
on long distance control (cf. (43) and (49)) hold for embedded exhortative clauses. The null subject of21

the -(y)oo-clause that has split antecedents does not support strict interpretation under ellipsis. Observe
the pair of examples in (51) and (52), where the -(y)oo-construction and a finite complement
construction are contrasted.
(51) A: Taro-wa Hiroshi-ni[∆

Taro-Top Hiroshi-Dat [otagai-otasuke-a-oo-to]teiansita

e.o.-Acc help-Recip-YOO-C] proposed‘Taro proposed to Hiroshi to help each other.’(52) A: Taroi-wa Hiroshij-ni [∆i+j otagai-oTaro-Top Hiroshi-Dat [tasuke-a-u-bekida-to]

teiansita

e.o.-Acc help-Recip-Pres-should-C] proposed‘Taro proposed to Hiroshi that they should help each other.’(53) B: Yoko-ni-modaYoko-Dat-even Cop‘Taro proposed to Yoko also that {a. Taro and Yoko (sloppy), b. Taro and Hiroshi (strict)}should help each other.’B´: Hanako-modaHanako-even Cop‘Hanako also proposed to Hiroshi that {a. Hanako and Hiroshi (sloppy), b. Taro and Hiroshi(strict)} should help each other.’(53)B has the indirect object as the remnant of ellipsis. While the agent of the ‘helping-each other’event cannot be Taro and Hiroshi when the sentence is continued from (51)A [(53)B-b], thisinterpretation becomes fine when it is continued from (52)A. (51)B´ is a case in which the subject ofteiansu(ru) ‘propose’ is an ellipsis remnant. Again, the strict interpretation of the null subject[(53)B´-b] is not allowed with the -(y)oo construction [(51)A] being an ellipsis antecedent, whereas it
is allowed with the should construction [(52)A] being an ellipsis antecedent. Thus split-controlled nullsubjects behave in the same way as uniquely controlled OC PRO with respect to sloppy/strict identity.
The following example shows that a non-commanding antecedent cannot be coindexed with thenull subject that has split antecedents without yielding unacceptability.
(54)# Yamada-kyoozyu-no hisyo-ga

Tanaka-kyoozyu-ni
22Prof. Yamada-Gen

secretary-Nom Prof.Tanaka-Dat[∆

otagai-oosie-a-oo-to]

itta

[

e.o.-Acc teach-Recip-YOO-C] said

‘Prof. Yamada’s secretary told Prof. Tanaka to teach each other].’≈ ‘Prof. Yamada’s secretary said to Prof. Tanaka: “Why don’t we teach each other?”’This example is pragmatically biased towards an interpretation in which a professor and the otherprofessor teach each other. Suppose Yamada, a professor of linguistics, thinks that she needs to learn
psychology for writing a grant proposal and also believes that Tanaka, a male professor of psychology,
wants to learn linguistics from her. She asked her secretary to tell him about her idea. The sentence,
however, only yields the interpretation in which the persons who teach each other are the secretary andProf. Tanaka, as indicated. This means that the indexation given in (55)a is prohibited, while (55)b isallowed.
(55) a. * Prof. Yamadai’s secretaryj told Prof. Tanakak [∆i+k to teach each other]b.

Prof. Yamadai’s secretaryj told Prof. Tanakak [∆j+k to teach each other]If (55)a were allowed by the grammar, no pragmatic anomaly should occur in (54). The data suggestthat the representation in (55)a must be excluded. This is readily expected if ∆ is OC PRO, whose
antecedent(s) must c-command the null subject. The pragmatic anomaly disappears when thecomplement -(y)oo-clause is replaced by a finite complement.
(56)

Yamada-kyoozyui-no hisyoj-ga
Prof. Yamada-Gen

Tanaka-kyoozyuk-ni

secretary-Nom Prof. Tanaka-Dat[∆i+kotagai-oosie-a-u-bekida-to]

itta

[

e.o.-Acc teach-Recip-Prs-should-C] said

‘Prof. Yamada’s secretary told Prof. Tanaka that they should teach each other.’≈ ‘Prof. Yamada’s secretary said to Prof. Tanaka: “You and she should teach each other.”’
The data presented in (51)-(56) all argue in favor of split control being OC.
In summary, this section showed that the exhortative construction allows split control and that theconstruction is an instance of OC. Recall Landau’s remark, which was cited in the quick review of23

English facts given in section 1. He notes that “[u]nlike propose and ask, recommend and order do notallow split control.” (Landau 2000: 55) It is plausible that propose and ask can be associated with theexhortative mood but recommend and order cannot be. If so, the same thing may be happening in bothlanguages.

4

Split Control and the PMD

4.1 A Gap in the Mood Paradigm

There is one pattern of indexation that has not been mentioned in the above discussion of embedded
mood constructions. Consider (57), which schematically represents the mood paradigm.
NPi NPj [CP ∆j … Mood° C°] say/orderimperativeb.

NPi [CP ∆i … Mood° C°] think/decide/say

decisivec.

NPi NPj [CP ∆i+j … Mood° C°] say/propose

exhortatived.

NPi NPj [CP ∆i … Mood° C°] V

promissive(57) a.

The embedded imperative given in (57)a is straightforward. The patterns given in (57)b and (57)ccorrespond to examples like (40)a and (40)b, respectively. What has not been examined is the patternin (57)d, where the matrix predicate takes an indirect object, and the null subject is controlled by thematrix subject and not by the matrix indirect object: The mood meaning associated with this pattern isperfectly imaginable. Its conventional force would be to add the relevant property denoted in theembedded clause, e.g. the property of screwing up one’s own face, to the speaker’s To-Do LIST andcrucially not to the addressee’s. Let’s call the unattested use of -(y)oo the ‘promissive’ use. (The term
is borrowed from Portner 2004, but it is used in a more specific way here than in Portner’s work. See24

footnote 5.) I characterize the promissive differently from the decisive in that the former necessarily
involves both the speaker’s To-Do LIST and the addressee’s, while the latter only involves the
speaker’s.
Having introduced the hypothetical mood meaning that -(y)oo may be associated with, let us
determine whether indexation of the type (57)d is actually permitted or not, i.e. whether or not thepromissive use of -(y)oo is possible. I propose to use the possessive construction discussed in section
3.2. With the verb phrase X-no kao-o sikameru ‘screw up X’s face’, the value of X signals theantecedent for its null subject. By manipulating gender of the possessive, we can force ∆ to be boundby the matrix subject but not by the matrix indirect object. Bearing this in mind, consider (58) (anexample of the same type as (48)b).
(58)* Taro-wa Hanako-ni[∆ kare-no kao-o

Taro-Top Hanako-Dat [hisface-Acc

sikame-yoo-to]itta/ teiansita

screw up-YOO-C]

said/ proposed

lit. ‘Taro {said to, proposed to} Hanako to screw up his face.’
The sentence is unacceptable. When ‘his face’ is replaced with ‘their face’, it becomes considerably
better.
(59) ?? Taro-wa

Hanako-ni[∆ karara-no kao-o

Taro-Top Hanako-Dat [they-Gensikame-yoo-to]itta/teiansita

face-Acc screw up-YOO-C] said/proposed

lit. ‘Taro {said to, proposed to} Hanako that ∆ screw up-YOO their face.’≈‘Taro said to Hanako: “Let’s screw up our own face!”’(To obtain a perfect sentence with the same interpretation, otagai ‘each other’ or zibun(-tati)‘self-Plural’ needs to be substituted for karera ‘they’; see (45)-(46).) The minimal difference here liesin whether the indirect object participates in OC or not, that is, the difference between the schematic
representations given in (57)c and (57)d. The contrast between (58) and (59) therefore suggests that nopromissive mood marker exists in Japanese.
The point can be confirmed in another way. The effect found in (60) looks like an effect of theCondition B type. A pronoun is too close to its antecedent. If subject control were to be legitimate in25

the presence of the ‘intervening’ object that does not control PRO, (60) should be good under thatinterpretation. But it is not.
(60)

* Taro-wa Yoko-ni [∆ kanozyo-o
Taro-Top Yoko-Dat [her-Accsonkeisi-yoo-to]ittarespect-YOO-C]

said

lit. ‘Taro said to Yoko [∆ to respect her].’cf. Taro-wa [∆ kanozyo-o
Taro-Top [her-Accsonkeisi-yoo-to]omottarespect-YOO-C]

thoughtlit. ‘Taro thought [∆ to respect her].’
The fact that the sentence is unacceptable again tells us that subject control over an indirect object is
not allowed. The present situation can be summarized as follows:(61) a.

NP NP [CP [∆ …. Mood°] C° ] Vi.

imperative possible (object control)ii. exhortative possible (split control)iii. promissive not possible (subject control over indirect object)b.

NP [CP [∆ … Mood°] C° ] V
iv. decisive possible (subject control)

Then, the following generalization emerges:(62)

In embedded mood constructions, the complement subject can be controlled by the matrix
subject across the indirect object only when it is controlled by the indirect object as well.

The question is, why should this be so? My suggestion is that the PMD is at stake here. In otherwords, the indirect object counts as an intervener only when it has no control relation with thecomplement subject.
(63)

NPi NPj [CP PROi … Mood° C°] V

The PMD, or minimality, provides an answer to the question of why there is no mood marker that isavailable in environment (63).
It is interesting to note that the verb yakusokusu(ru), the Japanese counterpart of promise, cannot
26

take a -(y)oo-clause as its complement, as pointed out by Watanabe (1996).
(64) a. * John-wa Mary-ni/to[∆ kare-no kao-oJohn-Top Mary-Dat/with [b. ? John-wa Mary-ni/to

his

his

yakusokusita

face-Acc screw.up-YOO-C] promised[∆ kare-no kao-oJohn-Top Mary-Dat/with [sikame-yoo-to]sikame-ru-koto]-oyakusokusita

face-Acc screw.up-Prs-Ckoto]-Acc promised‘John promised Mary to screw up his face.’
The b-example, which is a little degraded because of the presence of the overt pronoun kare in thepossessive position, shows that the embedded clause can be headed by the nominalizing
complementizer -koto, which follows the present tense form of the verb.14
The contrast given in (64) can be accounted for if we make three assumptions: (i) that moodclauses headed by the postpositional complementizer -to, unlike -koto-clauses, resist Case marking;15(ii) that ‘promise’ must assign objective Case, and (iii) that minimality is respected. Under theseassumptions, the indirect object in (64)a must be an NP if, generally, a PP cannot obtain Case. Then(64)a must receive the analysis shown in (63), and therefore the sentence can be excluded as aminimality violation. On the other hand, (64)b can have a derivation in which the indirect object isanalyzed as a PP. This is so because objective Case can be assigned to the nominalized CP in this case.
If the PP does not cause a minimality violation, the only slightly marginal status of the sentence is
expected.16 If we do not assume the PMD, we seem to have to say that Japanese accidentally does nothave a mood marker that is available for the promissive mood, even though the language has a marker
for the decisive (which is similar to the promissive in that both are associated with the effect of placing
a property on the speaker’s To-Do LIST). I do not know at this point how to test the claim that the gap
we saw in the paradigm in (57) is an accidental gap. Thus, it seems useful to assume that the above
account is correct since, even if it proves to be wrong eventually, it could shed light on the theory ofcontroller choice and the mood system.
In the next section, I propose one analysis to explain the remaining part of the generalization in27

(62); that is, subject control is possible when the object also controls PRO, which can be represented asin (65).
(65)

NPi NPj [CP PROi+j … Mood° C°] V

I look for a way to make the derivation for split control sentences avoid violations of minimality.

4.2 An Analysis of Split Control

Landau (2000) takes the position that PRO can in principle be bound by two antecedents. He seems toclaim, as we saw earlier, that the fact that split control is prohibited in cases we call embedded
imperatives is reduced to incompatibility between the meaning of higher verbs and the interpretation of
the embedded subject, namely PRO. He notes that “[w]here split control is impossible with certain OC
verbs (e.g. encourage), there seem to be plausible pragmatic reasons for that. (p.31).”
At first blush, this kind of account does not seem to be available when we use the PMD to accountfor the absence of the promissive. The ‘split control’ configuration arguably violates the minimality
principle. In (66), repeated from (65), PRO is controlled by NPi, which is not a closer antecedent.
(66)

NPi NPj [CP PROi+j … Mood° C°] V

I would like to suggest that one way to make things easier is to appeal to the movement theory ofcontrol (Bowers 1973, O’Neil 1997, Hornstein 1999, 2001, 2003, Polinsky and Potsdam 2006, Boeckx
and Hornstein 2006, among others). The idea is that, under the movement theory, if the matrix subject
does not move over the indirect object, the PMD can be satisfied in such a derivation. To do so, I
propose that two NPs are allowed to occur in the specifier of -(y)oo. The idea can be illustrated by
(67):

28

(67)

MoodP

NP+NP

Mood´

Mood

TP

The seemingly unusual structure given in (67) makes it possible for the derivation to proceed without
violating minimality in tandem with a few other technical assumptions. The proposed derivation is asfollows:
(68)
[vP

α

[VP

α+β V

[CP C° [MoodP

α+β

YOO …

In this derivation, α and β are conjoined, and the conjoined elements move to Spec,MoodP from theirbase position. One of the conjuncts (say, β) then moves to the indirect object position of the matrix
clause to check a θ-role feature of V, pied-piping the other conjunct, as in (68). Finally, α moves up toSpec,vP, checking the external θ-role feature of v.
This proposal relies on at least three assumptions that deserve one comment. First, it essentiallyassumes that at least a certain type of plural noun phrase can be formed by a conjunction in syntax.
Schlenker (2002) proposes that variables are conjoined in syntax, citing the following example toargue that we is partially bound:(69)

Each of my colleagues is so difficult that at some point or other we’ve had an argument

The informal paraphrase of the meaning of his example would be: For each of the speaker’s colleagues
x, x is so difficult that the speaker and x had an argument (See Stockwell et al. 1975, Lasnik 1976 forrelevant classic observations). The pronoun we is analyzed as ‘I+x’ in the relevant interpretation. See
also Kayne 2002, who hints at the possibility of treating bound plural pronouns as combined traces of
moved split antecedents.17
The second assumption is concerned with the minimality issue. I assume that when they form a29

unit, α and β must be “equidistant”. Namely, α should not block movement of β in the first movement(pied-piping α), nor should β block movement of α in the second movement in (68). The movement
theory of control implies that movement of “α+β” must be motivated by the θ-role feature checking ofβ, because if “α+β” obtains the Theme role, the wrong interpretation would result. So we need toassume that α is pied-piped when β moves to the matrix clause.
Finally, a comment on movement of α to the specifier of vP seen in (68) is in order. The movement
looks like extraction from a derived position. It is often claimed in the literature that extraction out of a
moved element is prohibited (Takahashi 1994, Nunes and Uriagereka 2000, Lasnik 2003, among
others). Notice that this view of extraction is not only at odds with the particular analysis of split
control that I am considering. Any theory in which movement into a theta-position is allowed faces apotential problem. Based on a fact pointed out by Chomsky (1973), Runner (2006) observes that aproblem for a movement theory of control is posed by the acceptability of extraction out of acontroller.
(70)

Which famous person did Martha persuade [a friend of t] to sign the program?

The logic is that if extraction out of a moved element is prohibited, then sentences like (70) should not
be allowed. So, what proponents of a movement theory might have to say is that the condition on
extraction in question should be a Condition on Extraction Domains of the Huang type, rather than acondition of the Takahashi type. Namely, domains of lexical heads do not prohibit sub-extraction but
those of functional heads do.
Armed with these assumptions, one of the central facts under consideration, i.e. that split control isallowed, can be accounted for under the movement theory of control. This is precisely because there is
no stage of the derivation in which α or β asymmetrically c-commands the other when movement takes
place. This way, the proposed analysis accounts for the existence of split control and the non-existenceof the promissive marker at the same time.
30

Let’s turn to one remaining question. Why don’t imperative null subjects support split antecedents?
(47)a is repeated.
(71)* Johni-wa Billj-ni[∆ {otagai/zibun-tati}i+j-no kao-oJohn-Top Bill-Dat [e.o./self-Pl-Gen

sikame-ro-to]itta/meireisita

face-Acc screw up-Imp-C] said/orderedlit. ‘John said to/ordered Bill to screw up {each other’s, selves’} face.’ ≈ ‘John said to Mary:“Screw up our own face!”
I do not have a definitive answer to this question. I would rather suggest one speculation. Suppose thatthe semantics and pragmatics of mood are organized in such a way that they ‘read off’ the structuresthat are yielded by syntax. Subject control structures are interpreted as decisive mood clauses, split
control structures are interpreted as exhortative mood clauses, and object control structures areinterpreted as imperative mood clauses. To put it differently, it is not necessary on this view to posit
mood heads such as Decisive, Exhortative, or Imperative to encode the differences among these moods(see Portner 2004, Zanuttini and Portner 2005 for relevant discussion; cf. Han 2000).18 If the present
idea is correct, the question under consideration can no longer be formulated.

4.3 A Note on the Root Case

We started the discussion of mood particles in Japanese with the following examples (repeated from
(8)):(72) a.

(boku-wa) beeguru-o tabe-yoo
I-Topbagel-Acc eat-YOO‘I’ll eat bagels.’b.

(kimi-wa)

beeguru-otabe-roYou-Top

bagel-Acc

eat-Imp‘You eat bagels!’
An example of root exhortatives is added.
31

(73)

(watasi-tati-wa)

beeguru-otabe-yoo

we-Topbagel-Acc

eat-YOO‘Let’s eat bagels.’
Not surprisingly, NPs that do not refer to discourse participants can never be subjects of these
constructions.
(74)* aitu-wa

beeguru-o tabe-{yoo/ro}that guy-Top bagel-Acc eat-YOO/Imp
What is curious about these non-embedded cases is that the effects of the PMD found in theembedded cases can be found here as well. We observed in section 4.1 that the decisive interpretationof -(y)oo disappears when the higher verb takes an indirect object, which we took to be an instance of
the PMD effect. It seems correct that what we call the decisive mood in Japanese, when it appears in aroot, requires that there be no addressee participating in the relevant discourse. Namely, decisive
sentences are always monologues of some sort. Suppose that Ana is telling Bill that she will leave his
party in a couple of minutes and that she is taking for granted that he, being the host of the party, will
stay there. It is very odd for her to say to Bill: kaer-oo ‘leave-YOO’. Ana may utter the same sentence
felicitously when she is alone at the party or when the hearers are just side-participants of the discourse,
who are not “the one for whom the speaker most directly designs his utterances” in Potsdam’s words(Potsdam 1996/1998: 166). When an addressee is present, the utterance can only be understoodexhortative: Let’s leave. When the existence of the addressee is intended by the speaker, the subject ofthe -(y)oo sentence must be the inclusive ‘we’, whose reference includes the addressee. In other words,
the root sentence kaer-oo cannot be the promissive, which would presuppose the existence ofaddressee(s) and would place the property of leaving only on the speaker’s To-Do LIST.
Given the present discussion of control constructions involving mood, we are led to the hypothesisthat mood clauses in roots are root infinitives of some sort and that projections that support indexicals
like ‘you’ are located somewhere in the relevant clause structure, along the lines of Portner and32

Zanuttini (2005); cf. Ross 1970, Speas and Tenny 2003, Tenny 2006. In the present case, ‘Speaker
Phrase’ and ‘Addressee Phrase’ are located above Mood Phrase, and it must be the case that
Spec,AddresseeP is closer to the Spec,MoodP than the Spec,SpeakerP is. Namely, the movement of anindexical element to Spec,SpeakerP cannot skip the Spec,AddreseeP. (This entails that decisive
sentences like (72)a lack AddresseeP.) If the specifiers of these phrases can only support indexicals,
then the person restriction found in examples like (74) is readily expected. If I am right that Case is notavailable inside the domain of MoodP, it is possible to maintain that the motivation for shortmovement of indexicals is Case in the root constructions. NPs like aitu ‘that guy,’ which do notundergo movement to the specifier of SpeakerP or AddresseeP, fail to have their Case licensed. It isalso worth stressing that these functional heads should not be available in embedded clauses. If theywere, the proposed analysis of control into mood clauses could not be instantiated because theembedded AddresseeP/SpeakerP would trap the embedded subject in the complement clause. They
only occur in roots.

5

Conclusions

This chapter discussed split control and the PMD effect based on facts concerning Japanese moodconstructions. It was observed that split control is systematically allowed in exhortative control clauses
and not in other clauses and that no subject control mood construction with the matrix indirect object
exists in the language. Semantic and pragmatic considerations do not seem to help because thepromissive mood seems to be coherent on semantic and pragmatic grounds. Taking this gap in theparadigm as something for a theory of control to explain, we appealed to the PMD (or the minimality
condition on A-movement under the movement theory of control) and derived the absence of the‘promissive’ mood particle in the language. The analysis led us to the hypothesis that minimality is33

respected in cases where split control is allowed, i.e. in embedded exhortative constructions. I
suggested that a plural subject can be a conjunction of two NPs and that they move to argument
positions of the matrix clause in a way that does not violate minimality. Consequently, theimpossibility of split control in embedded imperative constructions cannot be a matter of syntax. I
suggested that whether a mood clause is imperative, exhortative or decisive is determined by the resultof the derivation of that mood clause, recognizing that the nature of the interpretive process needs to bemade concrete in future research. In a nutshell, the difference among these moods should not bedirectly encoded as such in syntax if the absence of promissive clauses is reduced to the PMD. I hopeto have shown that such an approach opens up a new way of thinking about mood systems of the sortthat languages like Japanese have. Further investigations are needed.

Notes
*

This chapter is a slightly revised version of Chapter 3 of my doctoral dissertation. I benefited fromuseful discussions with Pranav Anand, Keiko Murasugi, Paul Pietroski, and Masaya Yoshida. I want toexpress my appreciation to Cedric Boeckx, Norbert Hornstein, Jeff Lidz, Juan Uriagereka, and HowardLasnik, from whom I received helpful comments on earlier versions of the paper. I'd also like to thankthe two editors, Norvert Hornstein and Masha Polinsky, for their hard work in editing the volume. Allerrors are mine.
1

It looks as though sentences like (1)a violate the PMD as well, because PRO is controlled by thematrix subject, which is not the closest controller. As shown in section 3.1, the Japanese equivalent of
this type of example is also unacceptable. I will suggest in section 4 that at least the effect found inJapanese is not a PMD violation. Thanks are due to Howard Lasnik (personal communication) forbringing this point to my attention.
2

See Martin (1996: 192) for discussion of a different pattern of judgments. I assume with Landau andHornstein that split control and partial control differ in the way presented in the text.
3-yoo and -ro follow vowel-final stems, whereas -oo and -e follow consonant-final stems. The

imperative morpheme following consonant-final stems can be realized as -yo in a formal register.
4

The term ‘intentive’, rather than ‘decisive’, was used in an earlier version of the present work. Nakau
34

1973 calls this use of -(y)oo ‘volitional’.) Examples like (8)a are essentially internal monologue-likeutterances even though the utterer might be aware of being overheard, as will be briefly mentioned in
section 4.3. ‘Decisive’ seems to me to fit with this characteristic of the relevant use of -(y)oo slightly
better than ‘intentive’.
5

Portner and Zanuttinni use the term ‘promissive’, which covers what we call ‘decisive’ here. I use‘decisive’ here in order to save the term ‘promissive’ for a slightly different case, which will be
discussed in section 4.
6

As Nakau (1973) observes, negative imperatives contain the present tense morpheme (which cannot

be altered with the past tense).
(i)John-wa

Mary-ni[∆ kare-no beeguru-oJohn-Top Mary-Dat [he-Gen bagel-Acc

tabe-ru-na-to]itta

eat-Prs-Neg.Imp-C] said

‘John told Mary not to eat his bagel.’
It is possible to take this to indicate that nonfinite TP is the complement of the Mood head andgeneralize this analysis to all the mood clauses.
7

See Landau 2000, Hornstein 1999, 2001, 2003, and the references cited there for more detailed

information on the nature of these diagnostics. See also Fujii (2006: Chapter 2), where the relevant
data in Japanese are discussed extensively.
8

It might be the case that the dative NP is the ‘deep’ object of -sase and that the deep subject of‘think’ is PRO. But this does not affect the observation made here. The reader could read “dative NP”
in the text as “the PRO controlled by that dative NP”.
9This possibility becomes an issue here precisely because the Japanese quotative complementizer -to

occurs in direct quote complements as well as in indirect quote complements, unlike English that. See
Shibatani (1978) for an overview of basic properties of the quotative complementizer, and also
Motomura 2003 for relevant discussion. Note incidentally that we ignore instances of quotes called“quotational intrusion” such as (i) (from Schlenker 2003).
(i)

My three-year old son believes that I am a ‘phitosopher’.

See Kuno 1988 for Japanese data of this kind.
10

See Anand and Nevins 2004, Schlenker 2003, and references cited in them for analyses of so-calledshifted indexicals. Japanese indexicals like ore ‘I’ do not undergo indexical shift, as shown by theungrammaticality of (27).
11

See Nakau (1973: 75-76), Ishii (1989), Tonoike (1991) and Nakao (2003) for data concerning the35

reciprocalizer -aw and analyses of its syntax and semantics.
12

Reflexive predicates of this kind include X-no hana-o kamu ‘blow X’s nose’, X-no te-o ageru ‘raise

X’s hand (conduct violence)’, X-no me-o hikaraseru ‘keep X’s eye (on something)’, and so on. The
reason why zibun is ok in both examples may be that the reflexive is underspecified in number. Also,
note that otagai here means ‘their own’.
13This obviation effect (cf. Bouchard 1983, 1984, Lebeaux 1984) may indicate that inalienable

possession constructions involve OC. See Pesetsky (1995), who suggests an idea along these lines.
14

Note incidentally that it is not the case that yakusokusu(ru) ‘promise’ never takes a yoo-clause.

When the downstairs predicate is a plural predicate, it is allowed under the exhortative moodinterpretation of -(y)oo.
(i)John-wa

Mary-to[∆ (boku-ga kita-ra)

John-Top Mary-with [I-Nomotagai-no kao-osikame-yoo-to]

came-Cond e.o.-Gen face-Acc screw.up-YOO-C]

yakusokusita (yooda)
promised

seems

lit. ‘(It seems that) John promised Mary to screw up each other’s face (when I come).’‘(It seems that) John agreed with Mary to screw up their own face (when I come)’
In this case, the indirect object cannot be marked with dative. See Nakau 1973:74-75, who made anobservation quite similar to this.
15

Mood markers cannot appear in -koto-clauses. See Bhatt and Yoon (1991) for discussion.

16

Verbs like tika(u) ‘vow’ behave in exactly the same way as ‘promise’.

17

A similar but different idea is found in Vassilieva and Larson (2005), who propose an analysis of

the Russian plural pronoun construction. Consider first (69) (cited from Vassilieva and Larson 2005:
101).
(i)

My projdëm domoj
wego-Futhome‘We/*I will go home’
My is first person plural, as indicated in the English translation of the sentence. However, when theplural pronoun appears with a comitative phrase ‘with NP’, it shows an interesting property.

36

(ii) My s

Ivanom nenavidim brokkoli

we with Ivan

hate-1st Pl broccoli‘Ivan and I hate broccoli’
Here ‘we + Ivan’ comes to mean ‘Ivan and I’. To account for this curious fact, Vassileva and Larson
propose that plural pronouns take a comitative phrase as their complement and that the first pluralpronoun my ‘we’ is semantically interpreted as ‘I+__’, where __ indicates the slot that is filled with thevalue of the complement of the preposition s in semantics.
18

If this is the case, verbs should not select these mood clauses in syntax. This is so because there isno such clause as [imperative] or [decisive] in syntax; cf. Landau 2000, 2004 for a theory of control inwhich selection plays a significant role.

37References
Anand, Pranav & Nevins, Andrew. 2004. Shifty operators in changing contexts. In Proceedings of
SALT 14, K. Watanabe & R. B. Young (eds), 20-37. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Bhatt, Rakesh Mohan & Yoon, James Hye-Suk. 1991. On the composition of COMP and parametersof V2. In Proceedings of the 10th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, D. Bates (ed),41-52. Stanford, CSLI Publications.
Boeckx, Cedric & Hornstein, Norbert. 2003. Reply to "Control is not movement". Linguistic Inquiry
34: 269-280.
Boeckx, Cedric & Hornstein, Norbert. 2004. Movement under control. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 431-452.
Boeckx, Cedric & Hornstein, Norbert. 2006. The virtues of control as movement. Syntax 9: 118-130.
Bouchard, Denis. 1983. The avoid pronoun principle and the elsewhere principle. In Proceedings of
NELS 13, P. Sells & C. Jones (eds), 29-36. Amherst, Mass.: GLSA.
Bouchard, Denis. 1984. On the Content of Empty Categories. Dordrecht: Foris.
Bowers, John. 1973. The Theory of Grammatical Relations. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen & Ritter, Elizabeth. 1987. A small clause analysis of inalienable possession in
Mandarin and French. In Proceedings of NELS 18, J. Blevins & J. Carter (eds), 65-78. Amherst,
Mass.: GLSA.
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, S. Anderson& P. Kiparsky (eds), 232-286. New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston.
Culicover, Peter W. & Jackendoff, Ray. 2001. Control is not movement. Linguistic Inquiry 32:493-511.
Culicover, Peter W. & Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler Syntax. New York: Oxford University Press.
Davies, William D. & Dubinsky, Stanley. 2004. The Grammar of Raising and Control. A Course in
Syntactic Argumentation. Oxford: Blackwell.
Franks, Steven & Hornstein, Norbert. 1992. Secondary predication in Russian and proper governmentof PRO. In Control and Grammar, R. Larson, S. Iatridou, U. Lahiri & J. Higginbotham (eds),
1-50. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Fujii, Tomohiro. 2000. Multiple nominative constructions and their implications. In Osaka University
Working Papers in English Linguistics 5, S. Kawakami & Y. Oba (eds), 1-47. Osaka: Osaka
University.
Fujii, Tomohiro. 2006. Some Theoretical Issues in Japanese Control. Doctoral dissertation, Universityof Maryland.
38

Han, Chung-Hye. 1998. The Structure and Interpretation of Imperatives. Mood and Force in Universal
Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. [Published by Garland, New York,2000.]
Hasegawa, Nobuko. 1984-85. On the so-called 'zero pronouns' in Japanese. The Linguistic Review 4:289-341.
Hoji, Hajime. 1990. Theories of Anaphora and Aspects of Japanese Syntax. Ms., University ofSouthern California.
Hoji, Hajime. 1997. Otagai. Ms., University of Southern California.
Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69-96.
Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
Hornstein, Norbert. 2003. On control. In Minimalist Syntax, R. Hendrick (ed), 6-81. Malden, Mass.:
Blackwell.
Hornstein, Norbert & Lightfoot, David. 1987. Predication and PRO. Language 63: 23-52.
Ishii, Yasuo. 1989. Reciprocal predicates in Japanese. In Proceedings of ESCOL 6, 150-161.
Kayne, Richard S. 1975. French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Kayne, Richard S. 2002. Pronouns and their antecedents. In Derivation and Explanation in the
Minimalist Program, S. D. Epstein & T. D. Seely (eds), 133-166. Oxford: Blackwell.
Koster, Jan. 1984. On binding and control. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 417-459.
Koster, Jan & May, Robert. 1982. On the constituency of infinitives. Language 58: 116-143.
Kuno, Susumu. 1988. Blended quasi-direct discourse in Japanese. In Papers from the Second
International Workshop on Japanese Syntax, W. J. Poser (ed), 75-102. Stanford: CSLI
Publications.
Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of Control: Structure and Meaning in Infinitival Constructions.
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Landau, Idan. 2003. Movement out of control. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 471-98.
Larson, K. Richard. 1991. Promise and the theory of control. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 103-139.
Lasnik, Howard. 1976. Remarks on coreference. Linguistic Analysis 2: 1-23.
Lasnik, Howard. 2003. Minimalist Investigations in Linguistic Theory. London & New York:
Routledge.
Lebeaux, David. 1984. Anaphoric binding and the definition of PRO. In Proceedings of NELS 14, C.
Jones & P. Sells (eds), 253-274. Amherst, Mass.: GLSA.
Madigan, Sean. 2008. Obligatory split control into exhortative complements in Korean. Linguistic
Inquiry 39: 493-502.
39

Manzini, M. Rita & Roussou, Anna. 2000. A minimalist theory of A-movement and control. Lingua
110: 409-447.
Martin, Roger. 1996. A Minimalist Theory of PRO and Control. Doctoral dissertation, University ofConnecticut.
Motomura, Mitsue. 2003. The thematic roles of sentential to/koto complements in Japanese andKorean. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 12, P. M. Clency (ed), 295-306. Stanford: SCLI
Publications.
Nakao, Chizuru. 2003. Japanese reciprocal constructions and Binding Theory. In Linguistic Research
19, 17-43. Tokyo: University of Tokyo.
Nakau, Minoru. 1973. Sentential Complementation in Japanese. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Nunes, Jairo & Uriagereka, Juan. 2000. Cyclicity and extraction domains. Syntax 3: 20-43.
O’Neil, John H. 1997. Means of Control: Deriving the Properties of PRO in the Minimalist Program.
Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Polinsky, Maria & Potsdam, Eric. 2006. Expanding the scope of control and raising. Syntax 9: 171-192
Portner, Paul. 2004. The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. In Proceedings ofSemantics and Linguistic Theory 14, K. Watanabe & R. B. Young (eds). Ithaca, NY: CLC
Publications.
Portner, Paul & Zanuttini, Raffaella. 2005. Clause typing: From syntax to discourse semantics. Class
handout at 2005 LSA Institute, MIT.
Potsdam, Eric. 1996. Syntactic Issues in the English Imperative. Doctoral dissertation, University ofCalifornia, Santa Cruz. [Published by Garland, New York, 1998]
Rosenbaum, Peter S. 1970. A principle governing deletion in English sentential complementation. In
Readings in English Transformational Grammar, R. Jacobs & P. S. Rosenbaum (eds), 20-29.
Waltham, Mass.: Ginn and Company.
Ross, John R. 1970. On declarative sentences. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, R.
Jacobs & P. S. Rosenbaum (eds), 222-272. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn and Company.
Runner, Jeffrey T. 2006. Lingering challenges to the raising-to-object and object-control constructions.
Syntax 9: 193-213.
Schlenker, Philippe. 2003. A plea for monsters. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 29-120.
Schlenker, Philippe. 2004. Person and binding (A partial survey). Italian Journal of Linguistics/
Rivista di Linguistica 16: 155-218.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1978. Nihongo no bunseki (An analysis of Japanese). Tokyo: Taishukan.
40

Speas, Peggy & Tenny, L. Carol. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. In
Asymmetry in Grammar, A. M. Di Sciullo (ed), 315-344. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Stockwell, Robert P., Schacter, Paul & Partee, Barbara Hall. 1973. The Major Syntactic Structures ofEnglish. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.
Takahashi, Daiko. 1994. Minimality of Movement. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Tenny, L. Carol. 2006. Evidentiality, experiencers and the syntax of sentience in Japanese. Journal of
East Asian Linguistics 15: 245-288.
Tonoike, Shigeo. 1991. Nihongo no sogobun to judoubun (Reciprocal and passive sentences inJapanese). In Nihongo no voice to tadousei (Voice and transitivity in Japanese), Y. Nitta (ed),83-104. Tokyo: Kuroshio.
Vassilieva, Masha & Larson, Richard K. 2005. The semantics of the plural pronoun construction.
Natural Language Semantics 13: 101-124.
Watanabe, Akira. 1996. Control and switch reference. Ms., Kanda University of Foreign Studies.
Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 203-308.
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure. Berlin/New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Yoon, James Hye-Suk. 1990. Theta-Theory and the grammar of inalienable possession constructions.
In Proceedings of NELS 20, J. Carter, R.-M. Deechaine, B. Philip, & T. Sherer (eds), 502-516.
Amherst, Mass.: GSLA.

41