Control into Conjunctive Participle Clauses: The Case of Assamese 9783110238259, 9783110238242

Table of contents :
Acknowledgments
Contents
List of Abbreviations
Chapter 1 Introduction
1. Research questions
2. Domain of investigation
3. Analytic approach
3.1. From Government and Binding to Minimalism: An overview
3.1.1. The architecture of the grammar in Government and Binding
3.1.2. The architecture of the grammar in the Minimalist Program
3.2. Control in Government and Binding
3.3. Control in the Minimalist Program
3.3.1. The PRO Theory of Control
3.3.2. The Movement Theory of Control
3.4. Multiple copy spell-out and the realization vs. deletion of copies
3.4.1. Deletion of copies
3.4.2. Realization of multiple copies
4. Structure of the study
Chapter 2 Assamese Adjunct Control: A descriptive overview
1. Introduction
2. Linguistic overview
3. Case in Assamese: A descriptive overview
4. Finite clauses in Assamese
5. Nonfinite clauses in Assamese
5.1. Infinitive clauses in Assamese
5.2. Conjunctive participle clauses in Assamese
5.3. The subordinate nature of CNP clauses
6. CNP clauses and Adjunct Control
6.1. Forward Control in Assamese
6.2. Backward Control in Assamese
6.3 Copy Control
6.4. Exceptions
7. Conclusion
Chapter 3 Forward/Backward Adjunct Control: The analysis
1. Introduction
2. Forward/Backward Control: The facts
2.1. Forward Control
2.2. Backward Control
3. Assamese Adjunct Control as Obligatory Control
4. Assamese Adjunct Control as sideward movement
4.1. Forward Control
4.1.1. Forward Control as sideward movement
4.1.2. Forward Control as sideward plus remnant movement
4.2. Backward Control in Assamese
5. Multiple Case checking and Copy Control
6. Case in raising vs. control
6.1. Landau’s analysis
6.2. Raising vs. control in Assamese
6.3. Case in raising vs. control: The counterargument
6.3.1. Boeckx and Hornstein’s analysis
6.3.2. Beyond Assamese: Case and Theta-Role Visibility
7. Conclusion
Chapter 4 Copy Adjunct Control: The analysis
1. Introduction
2. Copy Control as movement
3. Copy Control: The derivational history
4. Copy Control and linearization
4.1. Multiple copy spell-out
4.1.1. Nunes’s analysis
4.1.2. Fujii’s analysis
4.2. Multiple copy spell-out and Multiple Spell-Out
4.2.1. Multiple Spell-Out and copy raising
4.2.2. Multiple Spell-Out and Copy Control
5. Adjunction to CP and unwanted sideward movement
6. Phonological realization of copies
6.1. Movement and the PF realization of copies
6.2. Lack of cataphoricity and the nature of the CNP subject
7. Conclusion
Chapter 5 Adjunct Control violations as Expletive Control
1. Introduction
2. Nonvolitional as unaccusative
3. Unaccusative predicates and Expletive Control
3.1. Adjunct Control and the target of sideward movement
3.2. Expletive Control and cyclic merge
4. English Expletive Control
5. Conclusion
Chapter 6 Trigger: Why movement in control?
1. Introduction
2. Enlightened Self-Interest and control
3. Event and control
4. CP vs. IP and control
4.1. IP as defective for [Person]
4.2. IP as defective for [Tense]
5. Movement and predication
5.1. Theoretical assumptions
5.1.1. The merge of adjuncts
5.1.2. Predication
5.2. CNP clauses as predicative
5.3. Sinhala CNP clauses as nonpredicative
6. Conclusion
Chapter 7 Summary and conclusion
1. Summary
2. Theoretical implications
2.1. Multiple Case checking
2.2. R-expressions vs. pronominals in Copy Control
2.3. Why movement
3. Concluding remarks
Notes
References
Index

Citation preview

Control into Conjunctive Participle Clauses

Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 233

Editor

Volker Gast Founding Editor

Werner Winter Editorial Board

Walter Bisang Hans Henrich Hock Matthias Schlesewsky Niina Ning Zhang Editor responsible for this volume

Hans Henrich Hock

De Gruyter Mouton

Control into Conjunctive Participle Clauses The Case of Assamese

by

Youssef A. Haddad

De Gruyter Mouton

ISBN 978-3-11-023824-2 e-ISBN 978-3-11-023825-9 ISSN 1861-4302 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Haddad, Youssef A., 1972⫺ Control into conjunctive participle clauses : the case of Assamese / by Youssef A. Haddad. p. cm. ⫺ (Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs ; 233) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-3-11-023824-2 (alk. paper) 1. Assamese language ⫺ Syntax. 2. Control (Linguistics) I. Title. PK1552.H33 2011 491.41515⫺dc22 2010039871

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. ” 2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/New York Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ⬁ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany. www.degruyter.com

For Elena and Aaya

Acknowledgments Ack knowledgments This monograph is based in part on my 2007 dissertation “Adjunct Control in Telugu and Assamese,” which was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. BCS 0131993 to Eric Potsdam and by the University of Florida Russell Dissertation Fellowship. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are mine. Since 2007, I have done more research on the topic of Adjunct Control in South Asian languages and collected more data. Some of my work on Telugu has appeared in the following journals: Journal of Linguistics, The Linguistic Review, and Journal of South Asian Linguistics. This book, on the other hand, brings together in one volume a thorough investigation of control into conjunctive participle clauses with a special focus on Assamese. I thank the Center for the Humanities and the Public Sphere at the University of Florida for the Summer Humanities Fellowship 2010 that allowed me to devote more time to the book and finish it in a timely manner. All the data in this monograph, unless otherwise specified, were collected during interviews with native speakers. For the Assamese data, I am grateful to the following consultants: Upanita Goswami, Nirupama Upadhyay, Priyankoo Sarmah, Chandan Talukdar, Randeep Pratim Khaund, and Sakib R. Saikia. For the Telugu data, I would like to thank Sashikiran Chowdary, Suhitha Reddy Chigarapalli, Karthik Boinapally, Mahesh Tanniru, Santhosh Kopidaka, and Ganga Bhavani Manthini. For the data from other South Asian languages, I thank Prajakta Joshi (Marathi), Amey Kelkar (Konkani), Amitava Ghosh (Bengali), and Vibhuti Pandey (Hindi). In addition, I owe a lot to Eric Potsdam, formerly for being a formidable advisor and now for being an excellent mentor and colleague. Several people were of great help while I was working on this project and they still are; I thank them all for the discussions and feedback and/or for the moral support. I especially wish to thank Theresa Antes, Brent Henderson, Virginia LoCastro, D. Gary Miller, Maria Polinsky, Janet Rose, K.V. Subbarao, Mary Watt, Ann Wehmeyer, and Caroline Wiltshire. I am also grateful to Anne Mark for doing such a great job copyediting the book and to Hans Henrich Hock, Birgit Sievert, and Wolfgang Konwitschny of Mouton de Gruyter for being prompt and professional.

viii

Acknowledgments

I remain in greatest debt to my family. I thank my wife for understanding the nature of my work and for being so loving and supportive. I also thank my mother, my late stepfather, my sisters, and my sister-in-law for all their love and sacrifices. Finally, I thank God for seeing me through it all. “Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me” – they always have. Youssef A. Haddad Fall 2010 Gainesville, Florida

Contents Contents

Acknowledgments .................................................................................... vii List of Abbreviations............................................................................... xiii Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 1. Research questions ............................................................................... 1 2. Domain of investigation ....................................................................... 2 3. Analytic approach................................................................................. 4 3.1. From Government and Binding to Minimalism: An overview ............................................................................... 5 3.1.1. The architecture of the grammar in Government and Binding .................................................................... 5 3.1.2. The architecture of the grammar in the Minimalist Program .......................................................................... 8 3.2. Control in Government and Binding ........................................ 12 3.3. Control in the Minimalist Program .......................................... 15 3.3.1. The PRO Theory of Control ........................................ 15 3.3.2. The Movement Theory of Control ............................... 18 3.4. Multiple copy spell-out and the realization vs. deletion of copies ....................................................................................... 22 3.4.1. Deletion of copies ........................................................ 22 3.4.2. Realization of multiple copies ..................................... 26 4. Structure of the study ......................................................................... 28 Chapter 2 Assamese Adjunct Control: A descriptive overview ............................. 30 1. Introduction ........................................................................................ 30 2. Linguistic overview ............................................................................ 30 3. Case in Assamese: A descriptive overview ........................................ 32 4. Finite clauses in Assamese ................................................................. 38 5. Nonfinite clauses in Assamese ........................................................... 39 5.1. Infinitive clauses in Assamese ................................................. 39 5.2. Conjunctive participle clauses in Assamese ............................. 41 5.3. The subordinate nature of CNP clauses ................................... 42 6. CNP clauses and Adjunct Control ...................................................... 45 6.1. Forward Control in Assamese .................................................. 47 6.2. Backward Control in Assamese ............................................... 51

x

Contents

7.

6.3 Copy Control ............................................................................ 56 6.4. Exceptions ................................................................................ 65 Conclusion .......................................................................................... 67

Chapter 3 Forward/Backward Adjunct Control: The analysis ............................. 69 1. Introduction ........................................................................................ 69 2. Forward/Backward Control: The facts ............................................... 70 2.1. Forward Control ....................................................................... 72 2.2. Backward Control .................................................................... 79 3. Assamese Adjunct Control as Obligatory Control ............................. 83 4. Assamese Adjunct Control as sideward movement ........................... 85 4.1. Forward Control ....................................................................... 87 4.1.1. Forward Control as sideward movement ..................... 87 4.1.2. Forward Control as sideward plus remnant movement..................................................................... 89 4.2. Backward Control in Assamese ............................................... 91 5. Multiple Case checking and Copy Control ........................................ 99 6. Case in raising vs. control ................................................................ 101 6.1. Landau’s analysis ................................................................... 101 6.2. Raising vs. control in Assamese ............................................. 103 6.3. Case in raising vs. control: The counterargument .................. 104 6.3.1. Boeckx and Hornstein’s analysis ............................... 105 6.3.2. Beyond Assamese: Case and Theta-Role Visibility .. 106 7. Conclusion ........................................................................................ 109 Chapter 4 Copy Adjunct Control: The analysis .................................................... 111 1. Introduction ...................................................................................... 111 2. Copy Control as movement .............................................................. 115 3. Copy Control: The derivational history............................................ 117 4. Copy Control and linearization ........................................................ 120 4.1. Multiple copy spell-out .......................................................... 122 4.1.1. Nunes’s analysis ........................................................ 122 4.1.2. Fujii’s analysis ........................................................... 123 4.2. Multiple copy spell-out and Multiple Spell-Out .................... 126 4.2.1. Multiple Spell-Out and copy raising .......................... 127 4.2.2. Multiple Spell-Out and Copy Control........................ 130 5. Adjunction to CP and unwanted sideward movement ..................... 136 6. Phonological realization of copies.................................................... 141

Contents

7.

xi

6.1. Movement and the PF realization of copies ........................... 142 6.2. Lack of cataphoricity and the nature of the CNP subject ....... 146 Conclusion ........................................................................................ 150

Chapter 5 Adjunct Control violations as Expletive Control ................................ 151 1. Introduction ...................................................................................... 151 2. Nonvolitional as unaccusative .......................................................... 156 3. Unaccusative predicates and Expletive Control ............................... 157 3.1. Adjunct Control and the target of sideward movement ......... 163 3.2. Expletive Control and cyclic merge ....................................... 166 4. English Expletive Control ................................................................ 169 5. Conclusion ........................................................................................ 175 Chapter 6 Trigger: Why movement in control? .................................................... 176 1. Introduction ...................................................................................... 176 2. Enlightened Self-Interest and control ............................................... 177 3. Event and control.............................................................................. 179 4. CP vs. IP and control ........................................................................ 182 4.1. IP as defective for [Person] .................................................... 186 4.2. IP as defective for [Tense] ..................................................... 187 5. Movement and predication ............................................................... 188 5.1. Theoretical assumptions ......................................................... 188 5.1.1. The merge of adjuncts................................................ 189 5.1.2. Predication ................................................................. 190 5.2. CNP clauses as predicative .................................................... 191 5.3. Sinhala CNP clauses as nonpredicative ................................. 195 6. Conclusion ........................................................................................ 197 Chapter 7 Summary and conclusion....................................................................... 198 1. Summary .......................................................................................... 198 2. Theoretical implications ................................................................... 200 2.1. Multiple Case checking .......................................................... 201 2.2. R-expressions vs. pronominals in Copy Control .................... 201 2.3. Why movement ...................................................................... 202 3. Concluding remarks ......................................................................... 202

xii

Contents

Notes ........................................................................................................ 204 References ............................................................................................... 212 Index ........................................................................................................ 225

List of Abbreviations

* ? ✓ 1 3 ABS ACC CL CNP COMP DAT EMPH ERG EXP NOM F FUT GEN GRND HON INF LOC M N NEG NOM P proEXP REFL S SUB SUBJ

unacceptable/ungrammatical degraded acceptable/grammatical (only used in contrast with * or ?) 1st person 3rd person absolutive accusative classifier conjunctive participle complementizer dative emphatic ergative experiential nominative feminine future genitive gerund honorific infinitive locative masculine neuter negative nominative plural null expletive reflexive singular subjunctive subject

Chapter 1 Introduction

1. Research questions This study is based in the Minimalist Program of the Principles-andParameters approach to syntactic theory (Chomsky 1981, 1995, 2000; Chomsky and Lasnik 1995). It explores a phenomenon of control into a special type of adjunct known as the adverbial or conjunctive participle clause in a South Asian, Indo-Aryan language: Assamese. Control is a relation of interpretation dependency between two arguments in a given structure, one in the matrix clause and one in the subordinate clause. To illustrate, in sentence (1), there are two arguments: a “manage-er” realized as Tom and an implied “eat-er.” Both arguments have to be coreferential, and thus the “eat-er” is unmistakably Tom. (1)

[Tom managed [ ___ to eat the whole hamburger by himself]]

This study focuses on Adjunct Control, which is a relation of obligatory coreferentiality between the subject in the matrix clause and the subject in the adjunct/conjunctive participle clause. Control has been a controversial issue in Chomskyan generative grammar for a long time. One prevalent assumption in the literature has been that control is a relation of coreferentiality between an overt NP in a higher (matrix) clause and a silent NP in a lower (subordinate) clause, as sentences (2) and (3) illustrate. The silent NP is symbolized by △. (2) (3)

[Matrix Tomi hopes [Subordinate Complement △i to win]] [[Matrix Tomi won] [Subordinate Adjunct without △i knowing it]]

These are not the only attested patterns, however. Other patterns do exist, leading to the following typology of control in (4) (Polinsky and Potsdam 2006: 174). In Forward Control, (4a), only the matrix NP is pronounced. In Backward Control, (4b), only the subordinate NP is pronounced. In Copy Control, (4c), both the matrix and subordinate NPs are pronounced.

2 (4)

Introduction

a. b. c.

Forward Control [Matrix NPi … [Subordinate △i …]] Backward Control [Subordinate NPi …]] [Matrix △i … Copy Control [Subordinate NPi …]] [Matrix NPi …

Forward Control is the most researched. Its history goes back to the 1960s (Chomsky 1965; Rosenbaum 1967). Backward Control is a less studied phenomenon. It has been investigated in a number of languages, including Japanese (Kuroda 1965, 1978), Tsez (Polinsky and Potsdam 2002), Malagasy (Polinsky and Potsdam 2003), and Korean (Monahan 2003). Copy Control is the least studied phenomenon. It has been explored in Tongan (Chung 1978), San Lucas Quiaviní Zapotec (Lee 2003; Boeckx, Hornstein, and Nunes 2007), and Telugu (Haddad 2009a). Interestingly, all three types of control are attested in Assamese, although Backward Control seems to be quite restricted. The main questions that the study means to answer are the following:   

What are the syntactic characteristics of Adjunct Control – or, more specifically, control into conjunctive participle clauses – in Assamese? What are the mechanics involved in the derivation of the different types of control (Forward, Backward, and Copy)? How does Adjunct Control contribute to the analysis of control in general?

The rest of the chapter is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the domain of investigation of the study. Section 3 lays out the theoretical foundation upon which the following chapters are built. Section 4 provides a brief overview of the monograph. 2. Domain of investigation This study is mainly concerned with one South Asian language: Assamese, an Indo-Aryan language. The Indo-Aryan language family is one of the major language families that share the South Asian subcontinent. It is also one of the five largest language families in the world, having more than 640 million speakers (est. 1981) (Masica 1991: 8).1

Domain of investigation

3

Assamese, also known as Asamiya, is the major language of the state of Assam in the far northeastern part of India. More than half of the people living in Assam (ca. 13 out of ca. 22 million) speak Assamese as a native language. Many others, both in Assam and in the neighboring states of Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, and Nagaland, speak it as a second language (Masica 1991; Goswami and Tamuli 2003: 393–394). Assamese has a long literary tradition that arguably goes back to the 6th or 7th century AD. However, the earliest literary work that is unmistakably Assamese dates to the 13th century AD (Goswami and Tamuli 2003: 397). This study focuses on one aspect of Assamese, namely, Obligatory Adjunct Control into a special type of nonfinite participial clause known as the conjunctive participle (CNP) clause. Adjunct Control is a control relation between two subjects, one in the matrix clause and one in an adjunct. Three types of Assamese Adjunct Control are examined. These are Forward Control, in which only the matrix subject is pronounced, (5a); Backward Control, in which only the subordinate/adjunct subject is pronounced, (5b); and Copy Control, in which both subjects are pronounced, (5c). (5)

a.

[Ram-ei [△i/*k xɒ mɒ i [Ram-NOM [△ time bɦ at na-khal-e] rice NEG-ate-3] ‘Having no time, Ram didn’t eat rice.’

na-thak-i] NEG-keep-CNP]

b.

?[△i/*k [Ram-ɒ ri xɒ mɒ i [Ram-GEN time [△ bɦ at na-khal-e] rice NEG-ate-3] ‘Having no time, Ram didn’t eat rice.’

na-thak-i] NEG-keep-CNP]

c.

[[Ram-ɒ r xɒ mɒ i na-thak-i] [[Ram-GEN time NEG-keep-CNP] Ram-e bɦ at na-khal-e] Ram-NOM rice NEG-ate-3] ‘Having no time, Ram didn’t eat rice.’

Although structures that involve a CNP clause are generally Obligatory Control structures, a few exceptions exist. For example, sentence (6) involves a CNP clause, yet disjoint subjects are allowed.

4 (6)

Introduction

[[dɦ umuɦ a aɦ -i] boɦ ut gos [[storm.ABS come-CNP] many trees.ABS ‘A storm having come, many trees were destroyed.’

bɦ aŋil] broke]

The following chapters account for structures like (5a–c) and (6) within syntactic theory. Section 3 highlights relevant aspects of this theory. 3. Analytic approach Building on work by Hornstein (1999, 2003), I analyze Adjunct Control as an instance of movement, whereby the subject is base-generated in the adjunct before it moves to the matrix clause. The analysis of Adjunct Control requires answering two questions. First, what are the mechanics involved in the derivation of Assamese Adjunct Control structures? Second, what are the mechanics involved in the pronunciation of either or both subjects in the different types of Adjunct Control structures that Assamese allows? The answer to the first question requires familiarity with the syntactic theory related to control in general. Assuming the Movement Theory of Control (Hornstein 1999) and that the two subjects in an Adjunct Control structure are related via movement, the answer to the second question is based in the broader phenomenon of multiple copy spell-out, whereby more than one copy of the same token is pronounced in a single structure. The main task is to determine the factors that are decisive in the realization of copies, resulting in variation in Adjunct Control. I address these questions in Sections 3.2 through 3.4. In Sections 3.2 and 3.3, I review two opposing approaches to control theory: the PRO Theory of Control and the Movement Theory of Control. I show that the movement approach is more compatible with the Assamese data. Section 3.4 deals with the issue of multiple copy spell-out. It brings to the fore the factors that may be decisive in the pronunciation of either or both subjects in the different types of Assamese Adjunct Control structures. First, however, an overview of the framework within which this study is based is appropriate. The study adopts the movement approach to control, which has been made possible by changes in syntactic theory during the 1990s. Section 3.1 highlights some major aspects of this theory and explains how the changes came about.

Analytic approach

5

3.1. From Government and Binding to Minimalism: An overview This section is divided into two parts. Section 3.1.1 outlines the grammar within the Government and Binding framework as presented in Chomsky 1981, 1986a, 1986b and Chomsky and Lasnik 1995. Section 3.1.2 summarizes the grammar from the perspective of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995, 2000, 2001, 2004), underlining the changes in the theory along the way. In addition to the cited works, the discussion in both sections has benefited extensively from Marantz 1995, Ouhalla 1999, Hornstein 2001, and Hornstein, Nunes, and Grohmann 2005. 3.1.1. The architecture of the grammar in Government and Binding Government and Binding assumes that all human beings are equipped with a language faculty, or a cognitive ability to acquire language. This language faculty comprises a computational system and a lexicon. The computational system selects items from the lexicon and forms a derivation in accordance with X-Bar Theory. Another assumption is that the grammar has four levels of representation: Deep Structure, Surface Structure, Logical Form (LF), and Phonological Form (PF). Deep Structure is an internal interface level that relates the computational system to the lexicon. At this level, lexical items are inserted into a phrase marker in accordance with the Projection Principle and Theta Theory. The Projection Principle as stated in (7) ensures that Deep Structure thematic information is preserved at all four levels of representation. Theta Theory dictates that all thematic positions are filled. Subsequent movement into a thematic position is disallowed, as it violates the Theta Criterion, (8). (7)

Projection Principle Representations at each syntactic level (i.e., LF, and Deep and Surface Structure) are projected from the lexicon, in that they observe the subcategorization properties of lexical items. (Chomsky 1981: 29)

(8)

Theta Criterion Each argument bears one and only one theta role, and each theta role is assigned to one and only one argument. (Chomsky 1981: 36)

6

Introduction

To illustrate, in order to derive a sentence like (9), the computational system selects the lexical items in (10) and inserts them in the phrase marker in (11). (9) (10) (11)

Sue arrived. {Sue, arrived} Deep Structure = [CP C 0 [IP [I' I 0 [VP arrived Sue]]]]

Notice that arrive is an unaccusative verb that has one thematic position. This means that it requires only one argument. By leaving no thematic position unoccupied, the derivation satisfies the Projection Principle. If a thematic position is left empty, the derivation crashes. Overt movement applies between Deep and Surface Structure. In this sense, Surface Structure reflects the final word order of a structure. For example, the Surface Structure of (11) is (12). By Surface Structure, Sue moves to Spec,IP in order to be assigned Case and to satisfy the EPP, 2 leaving a trace behind. (12)

Surface Structure = [CP C 0 [IP [I' Suei I 0 [VP arrived tracei]]]]

Notice that the movement of Sue obeys the Projection Principle, which holds that thematic information has to be preserved at all levels of representation. Sue moves into a Case position but not into a new thematic position. And because Sue leaves a trace behind, the thematic information encoded at Deep Structure is preserved. Further, Surface Structure is the level responsible for sending the derivation to the two external interface levels: PF and LF. These two levels are needed for pronunciation (form) and interpretation (meaning) respectively. PF is interpreted by the sensorimotor system, providing the information needed for the phonetic interpretation/realization of a structure. LF is interpreted by the system of thought, providing the information needed for the semantic interpretation of a linguistic expression. A structure must satisfy Full Interpretation at PF and LF. Full Interpretation means that every element in the structure “must receive an appropriate interpretation” at these levels (Chomsky 1986b: 98). At PF, if the derivation has phonological information (e.g., a stress pattern) that cannot be realized or interpreted by the sensorimotor system, the derivation crashes. Full Interpretation at LF is a little more complicated. This is the level at which certain syntactic conditions apply. For example, an argument is not allowed to move into a new thematic position because such movement

Analytic approach

7

would fail to preserve Deep Structure thematic information at LF, thus violating the Projection Principle in (7). Another requirement is the Case Filter, which dictates that an NP be Case-marked in order to be visible. Visibility has two facets, described in (13) and (14). Notice that (13) is also a PF requirement. (13) (14)

An NP must be Case-marked in order to be pronounced. (Chomsky 1981: 49; Vergnaud 1982) An argument (or more appropriately, an argument chain) must be Case-marked to be visible for theta-role assignment. (Chomsky and Lasnik 1995: 46, following Joseph Aoun)

Another property of Government and Binding is that it is a modular grammatical theory which holds that the grammar is made up of several modules: Case Theory, Binding Theory, Bounding Theory, Phrase Structure or X-Bar Theory, Movement Theory, Control Theory, Theta Theory, and Trace Theory. Each module is distinct and subject to constraints and well-formedness requirements. What is common to all of them is that they are all relational. They require interaction between two elements. For example, Case Theory requires a Case assigner and a Case assignee. In addition, as Chomsky and Lasnik (1995: 27) state, “certain unifying concepts enter into many or all modules.” One such concept is government as defined in (15) (based on Chomsky 1986a: 10–16 and Chomsky and Lasnik 1995: 79). For example, the nominative Case on the subject in (12) is assigned under government by I0. (15)

α governs β only if a. α is a head b. α c-commands β and c. there is no barrier γ (mainly, a CP) that intervenes between α and β.

The purpose behind the different modules is to capture the more specific, more abundant, and seemingly unrelated grammatical rules that describe individual syntactic structures and to explain them by using more general grammatical principles. For example, grammatical rules that describe anaphoric relations among nominal expressions are realized as Conditions A, B, and C within Binding Theory. This trend away from specific rules and toward general grammatical principles was the main concern of Government and Binding in the 1980s. The trend continues to be the main focus of

8

Introduction

syntactic theory, even more so within the framework of the Minimalist Program as presented in Chomsky 1995 and further developed by Chomsky (2000, 2001, 2004) and by other researchers. 3.1.2. The architecture of the grammar in the Minimalist Program The Minimalist Program, as the name indicates, is an ongoing reductionist project launched by Chomsky in the early 1990s. Its purpose is to eliminate superfluous components of the grammar, preserving grammatical notions based on naturalness, simplicity, and economy, as defined in (16) (Hornstein, Nunes, and Grohmann 2005: Chapter 1). (16)

a. b.

c.

Naturalness implies that only notions that correspond to self-evident facts about language should be preserved. Simplicity follows from naturalness. If only natural notions are preserved and all other theory-internal notions are removed, the grammar becomes simpler. Further, given two theories A and B that are equal in every way except that A has fewer rules than B, A is considered superior. Economy is pertinent to derivations and derivational rules. Everything else being equal, a derivational step that requires the least effort (e.g., fewer steps) and that happens only when necessary (i.e., as a last resort) is optimal.

Let us begin by examining the four Government and Binding levels of representation in the light of (16). It is a fact about language that linguistic expressions are a combination of form and meaning. This fact justifies preserving the two external interface levels, LF and PF, as “a virtual conceptual necessity” (Chomsky 2000). Deep Structure and Surface Structure, on the other hand, are not a virtual conceptual necessity. As Hornstein (2001: 2) describes them, they are “the most abstract levels of UG [Universal Grammar] … the most remote from ‘experience’ in the sense that they are furthest removed from a sentence’s observable properties, its sound and meaning.” Such observations, originally made by Chomsky (1995), are accompanied by analyses which show that the grammar can not only do without these theory-internal levels but also be better off without them. To illustrate, the idea that at Deep Structure the whole phrase-marker of a linguistic expression is available all at once and that the thematic posi-

Analytic approach

9

tions of the phrase-marker are all filled before any movement takes place at Surface Structure is a purely theory-internal idea. What is certain is that words are combined into phrases and that nominal expressions do receive a thematic interpretation at LF. Therefore, Deep Structure could be dispensed with in favor of a simple operation that brings lexical items together; call this operation Merge (Chomsky 2000: 101). Since it is evident that nominal expressions receive a thematic meaning (agent, patient, etc.) when combined with a thematic licenser (e.g., verb), we can deduce that “theta-roles can only be assigned under a Merge operation” (Hornstein, Nunes, and Grohmann 2005: 54). The discussion suggests that the theory-internal levels are superfluous. The Minimalist Program recognizes the problem, marking the end of the Deep and Surface Structure era and reducing the levels of representation from four to two. This reduction is also a step toward simplicity. Everything else being equal, a grammar with two levels of representation is more desirable than a grammar with four. Now the question is: How does a derivation take place without Deep Structure and Surface Structure? Like Government and Binding, the Minimalist Program considers language to comprise a lexicon and a computational system. Preserving these two notions is also in line with naturalness. It is a fact that linguistic expressions are made up of lexical items combined to form phrases. These observations are a reason to believe that the computational system comprises two operations: Form Numeration and Merge. Forming a numeration means copying from the lexicon all and only the syntactic objects needed for the derivation. Thus, the numeration for sentence (17) is (18). (17) (18)

Sue arrived. Numeration = {Sue1, arrived1, I 0 1, C 0 1}

The indices in (18) show how many tokens of an item are copied from the lexicon. At the end of the derivation, all the items in the numeration must be exhausted. Further, no new features or items other than those in the numeration may be introduced during the derivation. This requirement is called the Inclusiveness Condition (Chomsky 2000: 113). Merge combines two objects to form a new syntactic object. For example, Merge applies to the NP Sue and the V0 arrived in (18). V0 projects, yielding (19). As indicated by the superscript, Sue receives a theta-role that is licensed by V0. Subsequently, I0 merges with VP, yielding (20).

10 (19) (20)

Introduction

[VP arrived Sue θ ] [I 0 [VP arrived Sue θ ]]

Another fact about language is that elements within a linguistic expression may be pronounced in one position and interpreted in another. Therefore, it seems that the computational system not only selects lexical items and combines them but also moves them around. One straightforward example is the case of wh-questions in English. For instance, what in (21) is pronounced sentence-initially although it is interpreted as a complement of eat. (21)

What did you eat?

This fact about language has led to the intuition that when an element moves, it does not really evacuate its site. More likely, it copies and merges, leaving behind a copy that is available for interpretation at LF but that is usually deleted at PF. Therefore, it is more accurate to describe movement as a dual operation of copy-plus-merge (Chomsky 1995). Economy considerations, (16c), constrain the applications of copy-plusmerge. The operation takes place so that a structure may be interpreted at PF and LF. In Minimalist terminology, lexical items (e.g., nouns) enter the derivation with features, some of which are interpretable (e.g., phi-features) and some of which are uninterpretable (e.g., Case). The latter cannot be interpreted at the interfaces and must be checked by an appropriate head before the derivation reaches LF and PF. Movement happens for the purpose of feature checking, which renders uninterpretable features invisible at PF/LF. 3 For example, in (22) arrived is an unaccusative verb that cannot check the Case feature of its complement. Sue moves (copy-plus-merge) to Spec,IP in order to check its Case feature, and I0 projects. Finally, assuming that all complete sentences are CPs, a declarative C0 merges with IP, resulting in the structure in (23). (22) (23)

[IP Sue Case [I' I 0 [VP arrived Sue θ]]] [CP C 0 [IP Sue Case [I' I 0 [VP [VP arrived Sue θ]]]]]

In Government and Binding, a syntactic object is shipped to LF and PF via Surface Structure. In the Minimalist Program, an operation called SpellOut (or Transfer) does the job (Chomsky 2000: 118–119; 2004: 115–116). Unlike Surface Structure, Spell-Out is not a level of representation. It applies to (23), and the derivation converges at LF. At PF, the lower copy of

Analytic approach

11

Sue is deleted, resulting in (24). (Deletion of copies is the topic of Section 3.4.) (24)

[CP C 0 [IP Sue Case [I' I 0 [VP [VP arrived Sue θ]]]]]

To summarize, the Minimalist Program assumes that the grammar comprises a basic operation Merge and two interface levels PF and LF responsible for form and meaning. Displacement is considered a fact about language. It takes place via a dual operation, copy-plus-merge, also known as movement. Movement happens for a purpose, namely, feature checking. The reductionist project of Minimalism does not stop here. As pointed out in the previous section, Government and Binding is made up of a number of modules, as well as certain notions such as government. In the Minimalist Program, there is a serious attempt to eliminate any notion that does not fall out in a natural way from the computational process. In this sense, “there should be no government, no stipulated properties of chains, no binding relations internal to language, no interactions of other kinds” (Chomsky 2000: 113). Therefore, optimally, government and the different modules must be eliminated. One radical attempt along these lines is carried out by Hornstein (2001), who reviews the role of the modules, deeming them unnecessary and attributing all construal to movement. One module that meets its demise in Hornstein’s system is the control module. This section has presented an overview of the changes that took place in syntactic theory over the last two decades. The most relevant points are the following: (25)

a. b.

c. d.

Deep Structure and Surface Structure are no longer part of the theory. Only the interface levels are preserved: LF and PF. Merge is the basic structure-building operation. It can apply to items selected in the numeration, as well as to phrasal structures. When combined with the operation copy, merge can also apply to an item already in the derivation. No new element can be introduced to the derivation if it is not originally available in the numeration (the Inclusiveness Condition). Only grammatical relations that are necessary for interpretation at the interfaces must be preserved (e.g., scope). Grammatical relations that are made available only for

12

Introduction

theory-internal reasons but are not necessary for interpretation should be eliminated (e.g., government). The following section describes how control structures are analyzed in a Government and Binding framework and how the innovations of the Minimalist Program have made an alternative analysis possible. 3.2. Control in Government and Binding In Government and Binding, control constructions similar to (26) have generally been considered to contain two base-generated subjects, one upstairs and one downstairs. Both are available for interpretation at LF. The former is a lexicalized subject, whereas the latter is a silent PRO. The arguments are coreferential, a relation that is determined through coindexation. In other words, sentence (26) has the structure in (27). This approach is known as the PRO Theory of Control. (26) (27)

[Sue tried [to impress Tom]] [IP Suei [vP traceSue tried [IP PROi to [vP tracePRO impress Tom]]]]

4

In the early Government and Binding framework (Chomsky 1981, 1986a, 1986b), PRO is presented as a Caseless, phonetically null, and basegenerated NP that occupies the subject position of nonfinite clauses. Later, observing that a Caseless PRO cannot be visible for theta-role assignment and thus violates the Case Filter as defined in (14), Chomsky and Lasnik (1995) hold that PRO is necessarily Case-marked and that it is assigned a special type of Case they call Null Case. PRO “is the sole NP that can bear null Case” (Chomsky and Lasnik 1995: 119), which is licensed in a specifier-head relation between a nonfinite I0 and PRO. According to the authors, it is only logical that a minimal I0 [–Tense, –Finite] assigns minimal or Null Case (Chomsky and Lasnik 1995: 119–120). Null Case serves two purposes. By virtue of being null, it dictates that the subject it marks be obligatorily unpronounced (unlike the nominative Case of the lexical DP Sue, which makes it visible or pronounced). At the same time, by virtue of being a Case, Null Case qualifies an argument chain for theta-marking at LF. A movement approach to control as illustrated in (28) is simply not possible within Government and Binding. The traces in (28) indicate that the matrix subject Sue starts out in one thematic position in the embedded clause before moving to another thematic position in the matrix clause.

Analytic approach

13

This means that the same argument is assigned two theta-roles, which is a violation of the Theta Criterion as formulated in (8), repeated here as (29). (28) (29)

[IP Sue Case/EPP [vP traceSueθ1/θ2 tried [IP traceSueEPP to [vP traceSueθ1 impress Tom]]]] Theta Criterion Each argument bears one and only one theta role, and each theta role is assigned to one and only one argument. (Chomsky 1981: 36)

A nonmovement/PRO approach as exemplified in (30) does not violate the Theta Criterion. The sentence assumes two external theta-roles, a “tryer” in the matrix clause and an “impress-er” in the embedded clause. The “impress-er” starts out as PRO in the thematic Spec,vP of the embedded clause before moving to Spec,IP in order to check Null Case and the EPP. The “try-er” starts out as a lexical DP Sue in the thematic Spec,vP of the matrix clause before moving to Spec,IP in order to check nominative Case and the EPP. (30)

[IP SueiCase/EPP [vP traceSueθ tried [IP PROiNull Case/EPP to [vP tracePROθ impress Tom]]]]

The above discussion outlines the distribution of PRO. With regard to its interpretation, PRO – like any NP-trace – is considered anaphoric. For example, in (30), PRO refers back to its antecedent Sue. In other words, it satisfies Condition A, which holds that an anaphor is bound in its governing category. However, structures like (31a–b), in which PRO is free, violate Condition A. In such sentences, PRO behaves like a nonanaphoric pronominal. It obeys Condition B, according to which a pronoun is free in its governing category. (31)

a. b.

[PRO to escape when everybody is watching] is not a good idea. John wondered [how PRO to behave oneself in public].

This bipolar quality of PRO led to the PRO Theorem in (32), which states that PRO is ungoverned simply because it occupies the subject position of a nonfinite CP. A nonfinite I0 – and presumably a nonfinite C0 – is too weak to govern PRO. Further, a CP, according to Chomsky (1986a: 10– 16), is a barrier. In other words, elements inside CP – or, more precisely,

14

Introduction

elements in the IP complement of C0 – cannot be governed by a head outside CP and thus cannot be bound by a node higher than CP. Since PRO is ungoverned, it vacuously satisfies both Conditions A and B. This leads to the dual nature of PRO. Unlike reflexives, which are [+anaphoric, –pronominal], or pronouns, which are [–anaphoric, +pronominal], PRO can be both: [+anaphoric, +pronominal]. (32)

PRO is ungoverned.

The PRO Theorem was acceptable when PRO was considered Caseless in the 1981–1986 Government and Binding version of Control Theory. In the latest version of Government and Binding, however, PRO is Null Casemarked, as we saw above. Case assignment requires government by a Caseassigning head. Therefore, to assume that PRO is Case-marked and ungoverned at the same time is contradictory. This is not to mention that it is only stipulative to assume that I0 and C0 can govern the specifier of a finite IP but not the specifier of a nonfinite IP, as Martin (2001: 142, fn. 3) and Watanabe (1996) point out. With the arrival of the Minimalist Program in the mid 1990s, the aforementioned challenges became even more problematic, and many of the Government and Binding assumptions that led to the derivation in (30) became either orthogonal or unavailable. To elaborate, Government has no place in Minimalism and can no longer be used as a tool for the interpretation of PRO. Concerning the distribution of PRO, the Theta Criterion that justifies PRO’s existence, ruling out (28) in favor of (30), is a Deep Structure requirement. The Minimalist Program recognizes two levels of representation that are considered a virtual conceptual necessity. These are the two interface levels of sound and meaning, PF and LF respectively. Accordingly, Deep Structure is eliminated from the theory. With the elimination of Deep Structure, the Theta Criterion as stated in (29) is also done away with. Whereas the idea that every argument must be assigned a theta-role still holds, the restriction that an argument can be assigned one and only one theta-role no longer holds (Polinsky and Potsdam 2002: 264–265 and works cited therein). Given the above observations, several researchers rethought the distribution and interpretation of PRO within the framework of the Minimalist Program (see, e.g., Martin 1996; Landau 2000, 2004; San Martin 2004). At the same time, other researchers have found it viable and desirable in Minimalist terms to eliminate PRO completely from the theory and resort to movement instead. One such approach is known as the Movement Theory

Analytic approach

15

of Control (O’Neil 1995; Hornstein 1999, 2001, 2003). The following section spells out the details. 3.3. Control in the Minimalist Program 3.3.1. The PRO Theory of Control The PRO Theory of Control within the Minimalist Program has different incarnations, all of which depart from the Government and Binding approach. Researchers have taken into account work on the distribution of PRO in other languages, such as Icelandic (Sigurðsson 1991), Romanian, and Arabic, among others (San Martin 2004). These languages show that PRO occupies a Case position just like lexical DPs and that finiteness is not always decisive in the licensing of PRO. For example, control obtains even if an embedded clause is subjunctive rather than infinitival. To illustrate, floating quantifiers in Icelandic show agreement with the null subject in the embedded clauses of control structures. That is, the dative floating quantifier öllum ‘all’ in (33a) indicates that PRO is itself dative, whereas the genitive floating quantifier allra ‘all’ in (33b) indicates that PRO is genitive (Sigurðsson 1991: 331–332, (8c–d)). (33)

Icelandic a. Strákarnir vonast til the boys.NOM hope for [að PRO lei ðast [to PRO.DAT to be bored ekki öllum í skóla not all.DAT in school] ‘The boys hope not to be all bored in school.’ b.

Strákarnir vonast til the boys.NOM hope for [að PRO verða allra [to PRO.GEN be all.GEN getið í ræðnnie] mentioned in the speech] ‘The boys hope to be all mentioned in the speech.’

16

Introduction

In addition, evidence from languages like Greek, Romanian, and Standard Arabic shows that control into finite clauses is possible (San Martin 2004: Chapter 4). The following sentence is an example from Standard Arabic. Notice that the embedded verb is subjunctive. (34)

Standard Arabic ħaawala l-walad-u [PRO ʔan tried.3.M.S the-child-NOM [PRO SUB ‘The child tried to succeed.’

yanʒaħa] succeed.3.M.S]

Accordingly, it has been suggested that the distribution of PRO is determined by factors other than Case and finiteness. These factors also determine the interpretation of PRO. Different PRO theories have been proposed in support of this view. In the rest of this section, I provide a synopsis of two theories, one proposed by Landau (2000 and subsequent work) and one by San Martin (2004). Landau (2004, 2006) holds that lexical DPs and PRO are in complementary distribution. The former is “a natural class,” or a less marked element, and the latter is “the elsewhere condition.” Landau considers lexical subjects as referential [+R] and PRO as anaphoric [–R]. Both [+R] and [–R] are interpretable features on lexical DPs and PRO respectively. The distribution of lexical subjects and PRO is distinguished by the Tense and Agreement features [T, Agr] on I0 and C0. “Put simply, whenever I0 or C0 are specified [+T, +Agr], they automatically come to bear [+R],” which is assigned as an uninterpretable feature on I0, a feature that can be checked by a lexical DP, as it bears an interpretable [+R]. “Any other feature constitution (that is, [+T, –Agr], [–T, +Agr], or [–T, –Agr]) is associated with [–R]” that is assigned as an uninterpretable feature on I0 and can only be checked by PRO, which has an interpretable [–R] (Landau 2006: 162). In this sense, PRO cannot be replaced with a lexical DP, not because PRO is Caseless or Null Case-marked or even ungoverned, but because it is a null anaphor that can delete an uninterpretable [–R] feature that a lexical DP cannot (Landau 2006: 163). Whereas the embedded clause in control structures is necessarily a CP in Landau’s framework and much earlier work, it is an IP in San Martin’s (2004). San Martin uses examples from Romanian, Macedonian, Hungarian, Spanish, Arabic, and Basque to argue that regardless of Case and finiteness, it is the size of the complement that determines the type of control. If the matrix verb selects for an IP complement, the result is an Obli-

Analytic approach

17

gatory Control structure that obeys the cross-linguistic generalizations in (35) (San Martin 2004: 48). (35)

The embedded subject of an Obligatory Control structure must be a. strictly coreferential with the matrix controller and b. phonetically null.

Therefore, like Landau, San Martin shows that the licensing of lexical DPs and PRO is divorced from finiteness and Case. Unlike Landau, however, San Martin (2004: 169, (85)) argues that it is the size of the complement clause that is decisive in the licensing process. (36)

In complement clauses, lexical subjects arise in CPs, whereas PRO is licensed in bare IPs.

In other words, San Martin also argues that “PRO and lexical subjects are in complementary distribution” (p. 207). According to her, IP complements have an incomplete I0 with a [+Tense] feature but no [Person] feature. This I0 [+Tense, –Person] is able to check Case on the embedded subject, which normally shows on elements such as floating quantifiers in Icelandic, but it is not able to license a lexical/overt DP. An indicative CP, however, licenses a lexical subject because it has a complete I0 [+Tense, +Person], with the [Person] feature being provided by C0. Now the question is: How does PRO receive its interpretation? San Martin (2004: 207), building on Martin 1996, offers the following explanation: The interpretation of PRO is derived as follows: PRO is a featureless element that is inserted off-line into the derivation as Last Resort (only when there is no DP left in the Numeration to saturate the existing theta roles). Although it appears in a local relation to a Case assigning Probe [+Tense], its defective nature makes it unable to host the Case Value. In order to prevent a FI [Full Interpretation] violation, the chain of PRO collapses to the most local chain that binds it, the subject or the object chain in Subject and Object Control respectively. This derives the Control effect.

What is it that accounts for the complementary distribution between PRO and lexical subjects? In other words, why doesn’t PRO occur in CP complements? Here San Martin follows Chomsky (2000, 2001) by assuming that CPs are phases that are spelled out and thus “are evaluated for in-

18

Introduction

terpretation once completed.” If PRO occurs inside a CP phase, it is sent for interpretation before the chain it occurs in gets the chance to collapse with a matrix NP chain. “Thus, at LF, the chain of PRO simply does not have a local well-formed and interpretable chain with which it can collapse and the chain of PRO will violate Full Interpretability” (p. 199). Landau’s and San Martin’s approaches are different in several ways, but they share the standard view of control. They consider control structures to involve two coreferential argument chains, one of which is PRO. Crucially, PRO and lexical DPs are in complementary distribution. Any theory of control that is built on this assumption is incompatible with the Assamese data. Assamese licenses Copy Control, (37a). In Copy Control structures, both subjects are obligatorily coreferential and, most importantly, pronounced. A silent subordinate subject, or what PRO theories consider as PRO, is also possible, (37b). The examples in (37) violate the essence of PRO Theory, namely, that PRO and lexical DP are in complementary distribution.5 (37)

a.

xɒ mɒ i na-thak-i] [[Ram-ɒ r [[Ram-GEN time NEG-keep-CNP] Ram-e bɦ at-o na-khal-e] Ram-NOM rice-even NEG-ate-3] ‘Having no time, Ram didn’t even eat rice.’

b.

[Ram-ei [PROi/*k xɒ mɒ i na-thak-i] [Ram-NOM [PRO time NEG-keep-CNP] bɦ at-o na-khal-e] rice-even NEG-ate-3] ‘Having no time, Ram didn’t even eat rice.’

The following section presents the relevant details of an alternative approach and shows that it is superior to the PRO Theory, at least as far as the Assamese data are concerned. 3.3.2. The Movement Theory of Control As Section 3.1 pointed out, the Theta Criterion and the Projection Principle are the main reasons why Government and Binding rejects a movement approach to control. With the elimination of Deep Structure, the Theta Criterion is also eliminated. An argument may be assigned more than one the-

Analytic approach

19

ta-role without inducing any violation. Note, however, that every argument must still be assigned a theta-role, and every theta-role must be assigned to an argument. Nonetheless, these restrictions now follow naturally from Full Interpretation rather than from the Projection Principle and Deep Structure (Brody 1993; Bošković 1994; Chomsky 1995; Polinsky and Potsdam 2002: 264). As Brody (1993: 2) puts it, “The Theta-Criterion holds at LF only to the extent required for meaningful interpretation.” Now that multiple theta-role assignment is possible, a movement approach to control has become possible, and with it the derivation in (38). Note that copies replace traces, in accordance with the Copy Theory of Movement (Chomsky 1995). (38)

[IP Sue Case/EPP [vP Sue θ2 tried [IP Sue EPP to [vP Sue θ1 impress Tom]]]]

The major departure from the PRO tradition in the above derivation is the list of assumptions in (39) (especially (39a–b); (39c–d) were introduced earlier in the Minimalist Program). These are the main grounds on which the PRO Theory of Control is abolished (Hornstein 2003: 22, (40)). (39)

a. b. c. d.

Theta-roles are features and can thus trigger movement. There is no upper bound on the number of theta-role features that a DP can have. Movement is greedy. Greed is understood as Enlightened Self-Interest, whereby an element moves to check a feature of its own or a feature of the target (Lasnik 1995).

Given (39), sentence (38) is derived in this manner: Sue merges in Spec,vP of the embedded clause, where it checks a theta-role feature. It moves to Spec,IP to check the EPP feature of the target. This is followed by movement to Spec,vP of the matrix clause, where another theta-role feature is checked. The last move is to Spec,IP. This is where the nominative Case feature is checked. Finally, the derivation is shipped to the interfaces via spell-out. At PF, the lower copies of Sue are deleted for reasons to be specified. Theoretically, the movement approach to control is in line with the grammatical downsizing project of the Minimalist Program. A movement analysis does away with all unnecessary construal processes in Control Theory. All construal is now attributed to movement.

20

Introduction

In Minimalist fashion, the Movement Theory of Control does not assume any levels of representation apart from LF and PF. No features or elements (e.g., indices) other than the ones in the numeration are inserted during the derivation, which satisfies the Inclusiveness Condition. The two arguments in a control structure are interpreted as coreferential for the mere reason that they are copies of the same token. An argument starts out in the subordinate clause of a given structure. It copies out of the subordinate clause and merges in the matrix clause. The result is nondistinct copies of the same token in both clauses. Being nondistinct, the two copies are coreferential. Empirically, the movement approach is potentially capable of accounting for Copy Control structures like (37a), repeated as (40). From a movement perspective, (40) is derivationally similar to (38) in that they both involve multiple copies of the same argument. The difference is that one copy survives deletion in the Forward Control structure (38), while two copies survive deletion in (40). Realization of multiple copies of the same token is not unique to Copy Control. It is attested in other types of structures, as we will see shortly. Compare this approach with a PRO-Theory attempt at accounting for the fact that a necessarily silent PRO is realized as a lexical DP. My impression is that such an attempt, even if successful, will be unique to control, just as PRO itself as a syntactic object is unique to control. (40)

[[Ram-ɒ r xɒ mɒ i na-thak-i] Ram-e bɦ at-o [[Ram-GEN time NEG-keep-CNP] Ram-NOM rice-even na-khal-e] NEG-ate-3] ‘Having no time, Ram didn’t even eat rice.’

The discussion in this section does not mean to imply that the Movement Theory of Control is without problems. On the theoretical side, a major premise in the movement approach, as we have seen, is that theta-roles are features and can trigger movement. According to Chomsky (1995), theta-roles are configurational in the sense that they are the result of relations between a head and its specifier or complement. Such relations, as Landau (2003) maintains, are traditionally accessed only at LF (which is reasonable, since LF is the level of interpretation) and not during the derivation. If this is correct, then theta-roles cannot trigger movement. This means that movement into a thematic position must still be disallowed. Despite the arguments and counterarguments (Boeckx and Hornstein 2004), the issue –

Analytic approach

21

along with other issues – is theory-internal and remains open to debate (Bobaljik and Landau 2009; Boeckx, Hornstein, and Nunes 2010) On the empirical side, another problem with the Movement Theory of Control is that it attributes all types of control interpretation and choice of controller to the narrow syntax, dismissing those instances in which the choice of controller is determined by semantic and pragmatic factors. For example, from a movement perspective, sentence (41) can only mean that the teacher will eventually go to the restroom. It cannot mean that the student needs to go to the restroom, which is also a possible meaning. (41)

The student asked the teacher to go to the restroom.

The reason for incorrectly ruling out the latter interpretation is that movement can only target the closest possible site, a restriction known as the Minimal Link Condition (Hornstein 1999). In this sense, the embedded subject in (41) can only move to the matrix object position, as (42) shows. Movement to the farther matrix subject position, as illustrated in (43), induces a violation of the Minimal Link Condition. Landau (2003) and Culicover and Jackendoff (2001) provide more arguments along these lines. (42)

Satisfying the MLC Minimal Link The student asked the teacher [the teacher to go to the restroom]. Movement

(43)

Violating the MLC Minimal Link The student asked the teacher [the student to go to the restroom]. Movement

The conclusion is that the Movement Theory of Control seems to incorrectly try to promote a theory of control that is totally free from any semantic or pragmatic interference. This observation is an important caveat for any analysis that adopts the movement approach. For example, a movement account of Adjunct Control in Assamese must leave some room for semantic and pragmatic interference in order to be able to account for structures like (6), repeated here in (44). Although a syntactic account is viable, as Chapter 5 shows, semantic factors still play a role. (44)

[[dɦ umuɦ a aɦ -i] boɦ ut gos [[storm.ABS come-CNP] many trees.ABS ‘A storm having come, many trees were destroyed.’

bɦ aŋil] broke]

22

Introduction

However, if Copy Control is a fact about natural languages, and if Chomsky’s speculation is correct that despite the variation in complexity and rule systems across languages, “language structure is largely invariant” (Chomsky 2000: 92), then the movement approach seems to have more chances of survival as a theory of control. Problems are simply normal in an ongoing project, and only time and more research can tell whether they are really a challenge to the movement approach or whether there are ways around them that still need to be worked out. One issue still needs to be addressed, namely, the pronunciation vs. deletion of copies in Adjunct Control. The different types of Assamese Adjunct Control structures stand out as different owing to one salient property: the phonological nature of the subjects. Forward Control involves a pronounced subject in the matrix clause and a silent subject in the subordinate clause. Backward Control is the mirror image of Forward Control; the matrix subject is silent and the subordinate subject is pronounced. Copy Control, on the other hand, includes two pronounced subjects. What factors are involved in the phonological (non)realization of copies? This is the topic of the following section. 3.4. Multiple copy spell-out and the realization vs. deletion of copies 3.4.1. Deletion of copies In pre-Minimalism, when an element moves, it leaves behind a phonetically null trace. The Minimalist Program does away with traces and adopts the Copy Theory of Movement (Chomsky 1995). Under this theory, when an element moves, it copies out of one position and merges in another. The outcome is two copies of the same token. For example, the man in (45) copies out of its theme position downstairs and merges in Spec,IP upstairs. The less marked situation is that only one copy, usually the higher/highest copy, is pronounced. The lower copies are normally deleted. (45)

[CP [IP [DP the man] [I' I 0 [VP arrived [DP the man]]]]]

Why do the lower copies get deleted? Several answers have been proposed in the literature (e.g., Brody 1995; Pesetsky 1998). One answer that has received considerable support is provided by Nunes (1995, 2004). Building on work by Kayne (1994), Nunes puts forth a systematic analysis to account for the deletion of copies. According to Kayne, linear order in a

Analytic approach

23

structure is a precedence relation that is regulated by hierarchical structure. If a nonterminal X c-commands a nonterminal Y, but Y does not ccommand X, then X precedes Y. By the same token, every terminal that is dominated by X precedes the terminals that are dominated by Y. Kayne formulates this idea as the Linear Correspondence Axiom (46). (46)

The Linear Correspondence Axiom Let X, Y be nonterminals and x, y terminals such that X dominates x and Y dominates y. Then if X asymmetrically c-commands Y, x precedes y. (Kayne 1994: 33)

Nunes adopts the formulation in (46) and holds that the deletion of the lower copy in (45) takes place in order for the structure to be linearized in accordance with the Linear Correspondence Axiom. As the dotted arrow in (47) illustrates, DP in Spec,IP c-commands the lower DP and thus precedes it. The fact that the lower copy is nondistinct from the copy in Spec,CP means that the man precedes and follows itself, which induces a violation of irreflexivity as formulated in (48). At the same time, the verb arrived ccommands and is c-commanded by the man. This means that it precedes and is preceded by the same element, which is a violation of asymmetry in (49) (Nunes 2004: 24). These violations do not allow the structure to be linearized in accordance with the Linear Correspondence Axiom in (46). The reason is that no linear order can be established between the two copies of the man or between arrived and the man, and consequently the structure does not converge at PF. (47)

IP 3

DP 6 the man

(48) (49)

I' 3 I VP 3 V DP arrived 6 the man

Irreflexivity If x precedes y, then x and y are distinct copies. Asymmetry If x precedes y, y necessarily does not precede x.

24

Introduction

In order for the structure in (47) to be linearized, only one copy may be phonologically realized and the other copy must be deleted. By eliminating repeated material that induces the violation, linear order can be established, yielding an appropriate PF object (Nunes 2004: 25). Deletion of copies does not just happen, however. According to Nunes (2004), it is a PF operation that is arranged for in the syntax. To elaborate, Nunes considers deletion of copies as a PF operation that applies to chains. Chains, on the other hand, are formed in the syntax in accordance with the Conditions on Form Chain in (50) (Nunes 2004: 91, (4)). (50)

Conditions on Form Chain Two constituents α and β can form the nontrivial chain CH = (α, β) if a. α is nondistinct from β; b. α c-commands β; c. there is at least one feature F of α such that F enters a checking relation with a sublabel of the head of the projection with which α merges and for any such feature F of α, the corresponding feature F of β is accessible to the computational system; and d. there is no constituent γ such that γ has a feature F' that is of the same type as the feature F of α, and γ is closer to α than β is.

Conditions (50a) and (50b) are straightforward. In (47), for example, the two DPs are nondistinct by virtue of being copies of the same token, the man, brought about by movement as copy-plus-merge. Further, the copy in Spec,IP c-commands the copy in VP. According to (50c–d), the movement of the man has to take place as a last resort and in accordance with the Minimal Link Condition (Chomsky 1995). In other words, movement must result in feature checking. Also, there should be no other DP that may check the same feature and that c-commands the man and is c-commanded by Spec,IP. The two DPs in (47) satisfy the conditions in (50) and, accordingly, they form a chain, At PF, deletion applies to the chain via the operation Chain Reduction in (51) (Nunes 2004: 27, (44)). “Under the assumption that deletion targets one constituent per application, economy considerations concerning the number of applications of deletion block scattered deletion,” preventing cases where more copies are deleted than is necessary in order for the structure to converge (Nunes 2004: 27).

Analytic approach

(51)

25

Chain Reduction Delete the minimal number of constituents of a nontrivial chain CH that suffices for CH to be mapped into a linear order in accordance with the Linear Correspondence Axiom.

Therefore, applying (51) to the chain {[DP the man], [DP the man]} in (47) results in the deletion of one copy only, which usually is the lower copy, as (52) shows. Nunes (2004: 30–38) holds that uninterpretable features are not legible at PF. If a copy survives deletion at PF, but it still has formal features, they have to be eliminated by an operation Nunes calls Formal Feature Elimination. Normally, by the time the derivation is delivered to the phonological component, the higher copy has checked more formal/uninterpretable features than the lower copy. This means that the phonological realization of the higher copy requires less Formal Feature Elimination and is thus more economical. Consequently, the lower copy is marked for deletion. (52)

IP 3

DP 6 the man

I' 3 I VP 3 V DP arrived 6 the man

Before we proceed to the next section, it is worth noting that according to Nunes (2004: 50–55), if two nondistinct copies do not form a chain, neither of them can be deleted. As I mentioned above, the reason is that the PF operation Chain Reduction is parasitic on the narrow-syntax operation Form Chain. Consider the example in (53). The sentence involves coordination of vPs, as (53b) shows. Assume that the DP the pizza starts out in the lower conjunct before moving to the higher one. The two copies are nondistinct, but they do not enter a c-command relationship. Therefore, they cannot form a chain. At PF, Chain Reduction can target neither copy. Accordingly, neither is deleted. The structure may not be linearized, however. According to the Linear Correspondence Axiom in (46), the two copies of the pizza are still in a precedence relationship. The reason is that the higher vP c-

26

Introduction

commands the lower vP and thus all the terminals dominated by the higher vP precede all the terminals dominated by the lower vP. This means that if both copies are pronounced, the same element follows and precedes itself, which is a violation of the irreflexivity condition in (48). As a result, the structure must not converge, contrary to fact. To avoid this problem, Nunes maintains that the DP the pizza and the pronominal it are base-generated. That is, they are not related by movement and thus they are distinct copies. (53)

a. b.

Tom ate the pizza and paid for it. Tom [CONJP [vP ate [DP the pizza]] [CONJP' and [vP paid [PP for [DP the pizza/it]]]]]

Nevertheless, there exist structures in which two elements are related by movement – that is, they are nondistinct – and yet they are pronounced without inducing a violation of the Linear Correspondence Axiom. The following section provides the details. 3.4.2. Realization of multiple copies Although the unmarked situation is that only one copy in a given chain survives deletion upon linearization, structures in which more than one copy in a chain is pronounced are attested in several languages. Such structures are classified as instances of multiple copy spell-out. Here are three examples from Romani (McDaniel 1986, in Nunes 2004: 38, (72)), Frisian (Hiemstra 1986, in Nunes 2004: 38, (73)), and San Lucas Quiaviní Zapotec (Lee 2003: 102, (83)). Each example includes two nondistinct copies in a ccommand relationship, yet they both escape deletion without violating the Linear Correspondence Axiom. (54)

(55)

Romani Kas misline kas o Demìri whom you.think whom Demir ‘Who do you think Demir saw?’

dikhlâ kas? saw whom

Frisian Wêr tinke jo wêr’t where think you where-that ‘Where do you think that Jan lives?’

wennet wêr? lives where

Jan Jan

Analytic approach

(56)

San Lucas Quiaviní Zapotec R-cààa’z Gye’eihlly HABITUAL-want Mike (Gye’eihlly) bxaady. (Mike) grasshopper ‘Mike wants to eat grasshopper.’

27

g-auh IRREALIS-eat

According to Nunes (2004: 40), structures like (54)–(56) are possible only if one of the copies is a head and it adjoins to another head. By PF, the two heads undergo morphological reanalysis, or morphological fusion in the sense of Halle and Marantz (1993), and the copy becomes a part of the node that dominates it. At PF, the structure is linearized. Following Chomsky (1995: 337), Nunes assumes that the Linear Correspondence Axiom does not apply word-internally. Therefore, the fused copy cannot be detected as nondistinct from the other copies in the chain, so it escapes deletion. To illustrate, Nunes holds that the intermediate copy of the wh-element in each of (54) and (55) adjoins to C0 of the subordinate clause on its way to Spec,CP of the matrix clause. The wh-element and C0 are morphologically reanalyzed as a single terminal node of the form [C⁰ WH [C⁰ C0]] and therefore the wh-element becomes “invisible to the Linear Correspondance Axiom” (Nunes 2004: 40). See Kandybowicz (2006), however, who argues that the two copies become “morphosyntactically distinct .” Chain Reduction is subject to economy restrictions; that is, it applies only if the phonological realization of a copy prevents the structure from being linearized. In (54) and (55), the only wh-copy that leads to such consequences is the lowest copy and it is therefore deleted. The intermediate copy, on the other hand, no longer causes the derivation to crash, which is why it is not deleted. Note that the morphological fusion of the intermediate wh-copy and C0 into [C⁰ WH [C⁰ C0]] can be morphophonologically detected in (55). Whereas the highest and lowest copies are wêr ‘where’, the intermediate fused copy is wêr’t ‘where-that’. This is not necessarily always the case, however, as (54) and (56) imply. According to Nunes, sentence (54) is similar to (55), except for one difference: the wh-element in (54) adjoins to a null head. Sentence (56) is an example of Copy Control. Boeckx, Hornstein, and Nunes (2007) analyze it as movement. The subject copies out of the subordinate clause and merges in the matrix clause. The copy in the subordinate

28

Introduction

clause adjoins to a covert head, a reflexive self-affix,6 and the two form a new word. At PF, linearization applies. In principle, the lower copy should be deleted. However, linearization cannot see into words. Given that the lower copy of the subject is now hiding in a bigger word, it is not detected as nondistinct from the higher copy. Accordingly, they both escape deletion. In this section, I set the stage for the rest of the study. Most crucially, I highlighted the major premises of the Movement Theory of Control and explained why it is superior to other alternatives with respect to Adjunct Control in Assamese. In addition to the Movement Theory of Control, I adopt Nunes’s (2004) system in order to explain what determines the deletion or pronunciation of copies in Adjunct Control. In this section, I delineated the main points in Nunes’s (2004) system that are relevant to this study. The main idea is that the deletion and pronunciation of copies do not happen randomly but are restricted by certain conditions at the syntaxphonology interface. Other theoretical assumptions will be discussed as needed in the body of the monograph. Section 4 provides a brief overview of the following chapters. 4. Structure of the study The following chapters are organized as follows. Chapter 2 is a descriptive overview. It highlights the Assamese morphosyntactic characteristics that are most relevant to the topic of Adjunct Control. These include word order, Case, and types of clauses. It also lays out the Adjunct Control data that are analyzed in subsequent chapters. A major contribution of this chapter is that it presents evidence of Copy Control in Assamese, a phenomenon that, to my knowledge, has not been documented before. Chapters 3 and 4 provide a detailed analysis of the different types of Adjunct Control. I follow Hornstein (1999, 2003) and Nunes (1995, 2004) and consider Adjunct Control as being derived via sideward movement. Chapter 3 focuses on Forward and Backward Control. These types share two characteristics. First, the adjunct merges with the matrix clause at vP. Second, only one subject is phonologically realized. Chapter 4 deals with Copy Control. In this case, the adjunct merges with the matrix clause at CP, and both subjects are pronounced. The chapter places Copy Control within the bigger picture of multiple copy spell-out. I argue that two copies in a Copy Control structure survive deletion because

Structure of the study

29

one of them becomes part of a bigger phonological word – a spelled-out domain – that is opaque to linearization and is inaccessible to Form Chain and Chain Reduction. Chapter 5 deals with the apparent exceptions to Adjunct Control; see (6) above. These are structures that pattern like Adjunct Control structures but allow disjoint subjects. The chapter argues that these exceptions are instances of Expletive Control that have the same derivational history as the other more common instances of Adjunct Control. The major difference is that the subjects in Expletive Control structures are null expletives rather than arguments. Chapters 3 through 5 remain silent about why movement takes place in Assamese Adjunct Control. Given that movement in Minimalism has to happen for a reason, Chapter 6 addresses this issue and shows that the Minimalist view of movement as being triggered by feature checking is not sufficient to account for the data under examination. Building on work by Rothstein (2001), I suggest that the subject moves in order to make up for a defect in the adjunct. I show that the adjunct in Adjunct Control structures is nonpredicative and suggest that its merger is disallowed unless it is licensed by the movement of its subject. Chapter 7 is a summary and a conclusion. It summarizes the findings of the study and highlights the major theoretical implications.

Chapter 2 Assamese Adjunct Control: A descriptive overview

1. Introduction This chapter presents a detailed description of the phenomenon of Adjunct Control in Assamese. The focus is on subject control into conjunctive participle or adverbial clauses. To set the scene, the chapter also outlines the aspects of Assamese morphosyntax that are relevant to the phenomenon in question. The chapter is organized as follows. Section 2 offers a general linguistic overview of Assamese. Section 3 presents a descriptive survey of Case, especially as it relates to subject NPs. Section 4 briefly describes finite clauses in Assamese, with a special focus on agreement. Section 5 delineates the characteristics of nonfinite clauses, drawing a distinction between nonfinite subordinate clauses that do not enforce a control interpretation and conjunctive participle clauses that do. Section 6 highlights the different types of Adjunct Control that are allowed in the language. These are Forward Control (Section 6.1), Backward Control (Section 6.2), and Copy Control (Section 6.3). Exceptions to the phenomenon are presented in Section 6.4. Section 7 summarizes the chapter. 2. Linguistic overview Assamese is a head-final, SOV language (Goswami and Tamuli 2003). It is also a subject pro-drop language in which overt subjects and pro are interchangeable. That is, both (1a) and (1b) are grammatical. (1)

a.

xi azi ratipuwa Prɒ xad-ɒ k he.NOM this morning Proxad-ACC kitap dil-e e-khɒ n one-CL book gave-3 ‘He gave Proxad a book this morning.’

Linguistic overview

b.

31

pro azi ratipuwa Prɒ xad-ɒ k pro this morning Proxad-ACC kitap dil-e e-khɒ n one-CL book gave-3 ‘He gave Proxad a book this morning.’

Although the canonical word order in Assamese is SOV, OSV is also possible. In fact, apart from the position of the verb, which is usually fixed, any constituent can be sentence-initial in a topic position, as the sentences in (2) demonstrate. (2)

a.

Ram-e azi ratipuwa Prɒ xad-ɒ k Ram-NOM this morning Proxad-ACC e-khɒ n kitap dil-e one-CL book gave-3 ‘Ram gave Proxad a book this morning.’

b. c. d.

azi ratipuwa Ram-e Prɒ xad-ɒ k e-khɒ n kitap dil-e Prɒ xad-ɒ k Ram-e azi ratipuwa e-khɒ n kitap dil-e e-khɒ n kitap Ram-e azi ratipuwa Prɒ xad-ɒ k dil-e

The immediate preverbal position is a focus position. For example, the subject in (3a) may occupy preverbal position for emphatic purposes, as (3b) illustrates. At the same time, question words, which are focal elements, occupy preverbal position, (3c). Note, however, that question words may also be pronounced in situ, (3d). (3)

a.

Ram-e mor gɦɒ r-to Ram-NOM my house-CL ‘Ram destroyed my house.’

bɦ aŋil-e destroy-3

b.

mor gɦɒ r-to Ram-e bɦ aŋil-e my house-CL Ram-NOM destroyed-3 ‘No one but Ram destroyed my house.’

c.

mor gɦɒ r-to kone my house-CL who.NOM ‘Who destroyed my house?’

bɦ aŋil-e destroyed-3

32

Assamese Adjunct Control: A descriptive overview

d.

kone mor gɦɒ r-to who.NOM my house-CL ‘Who destroyed my house?’

bɦ aŋil-e destroyed-3

The following section delineates the main characteristics of Case in Assamese, focusing mainly on the Case of the subject. 3. Case in Assamese: A descriptive overview Case in Assamese is a morphological and syntactic category. Morphologically, Assamese Case-marking is agglutinative in nature. Syntactically, an NP must inflect for Case in order to be used in a sentence; its inflection determines its function (Masica 1991: 230–236; Goswami and Tamuli 2003: 319). Since this study is concerned with subject control into adjuncts, the focus in the following sections is mainly on the Case of subject NPs. These can be Structural Case-marked (e.g., nominative) or Inherent Case-marked (e.g., genitive). Structural Case is associated with grammatical relationships. For example, although the subject of passive constructions in English is a theme, it is Structural Case-marked nominative. Inherent Case, on the other hand, is associated with theta-roles. For instance, an experiencer subject NP – that is, an NP whose physical or emotional state the predicate describes – is genitive in Assamese. Assamese is a nominative-accusative language (contra Amritavalli and Sarma 2002). The subject in Assamese may be Case-marked nominative, absolutive, accusative, or genitive (Goswami 1982; Nath 2001; Goswami and Tamuli 2003). And as we will see shortly, nominative is further split into two categories: nominative and experiential nominative. Assamese Case-marked NPs display minimum morphophonemic variation, although pronouns seem to be more susceptible to such variation, as Table 2-1 shows. Table 2-1. Some types of case in Assamese Case Form Nominative -e/Ø Absolutive -Ø Accusative -(o)k Genitive -ɒ r

‘man-CL-case’ manuɦ -zɒ n-e manuɦ -zɒ n-Ø manuɦ -zɒ n-ɒ k manuɦ -zɒ n-ɒ r

‘he’ xi xi ta-k ta-r

Case in Assamese: A descriptive overview

33

Nominative subjects occur with transitive predicates, (4), and unergative predicates, (5). Absolutive subjects occur with unaccusative predicates, (6). (4)

(5)

a.

Ram-e khotha-to Ram-NOM news-CL ‘Ram heard the news.’

xunil-e heard-3

b.

kukur-to-e Prɒ xad-ɒ k dog-CL-NOM Proxad-ACC ‘The dog bit Proxad.’

kamuril-e bit-3

c.

Ram-e saɦ Ram-NOM tea ‘Ram made tea.’

d.

manuɦ -to-e dɒ rob man-CL-NOM medicine ‘The man took medication.’

e.

suali-zɒ ni-e tair boyfriend-ɒ k girl-CL-NOM her boyfriend-ACC ‘The girl saw her boyfriend.’

a.

Ram-e nasil-e Ram-NOM danced-3 ‘Ram danced.’

b.

manuɦ -to-e man-CL-NOM ‘The man runs.’

dɔ ur-e runs-3

c.

lora-to-e boy-the-NOM ‘The boy ate.’

khal-e ate-3

d.

Ram-e Ram-NOM ‘Ram swam.’

bɔ nal-e made-3

xaturil-e swam-3

lol-e took-3 dekhil-e saw-3

34 (6)

Assamese Adjunct Control: A descriptive overview

a.

Prɒ xad xui Proxad.ABS sleep ‘Proxad fell asleep.’

thakil kept

b.

boɦ ut manuɦ many people.ABS ‘Many people died.’

mɔ ril died

c.

Ram aɦ il Ram.ABS came ‘Ram arrived.’

d.

Sarita poril Sarita.ABS fell ‘Sarita fell down.’

Accusative subjects, on the other hand, are a rare phenomenon. They occur only “with the verb lag ‘want/need’, which is invariably in the third person” (Goswami and Tamuli 2003: 432). Sentences (7a–b) are examples. Note, however, that (7c) is an alternative with a nominative subject. Accusative subjects will not be discussed in this monograph. (7)

a.

Ram-ɒ k tɒ ka Ram-ACC money ‘Ram wants/needs money.’

lag-e want-3

b.

Sarita-k ei-to Sarita-ACC this-CL ‘Sarita wants this car.’

gari car

c.

Ram-e pani Ram-NOM water ‘Ram wanted water.’

bisaril-e wanted-3

lag-e want-3

Genitive subjects occur with experiential predicates. They are experiencers whose emotional or physical state the predicate describes, (8). (8)

a.

Ram-ɒ r khɒ ŋ Ram-GEN anger ‘Ram got angry.’

uthil raised

Case in Assamese: A descriptive overview

b.

Ram-ɒ r thanda Ram-GEN cold ‘Ram felt cold.’

lagil felt

c.

tar phurti he.GEN exhilaration ‘He felt very happy.’

lagil felt

d.

manuɦ -to-r ga man-CL-GEN body ‘The man got sick.’

bea bad

ɦɔ l became

e.

suali-zɒ ni-r laz girl-CL-GEN shy ‘The girl felt shy.’

lagil felt

f.

kukur-to-r bɦɒ e dog-CL-GEN fear ‘The dog felt scared.’

lagil felt

35

In addition, genitive subjects show up in constructions for “inalienable” and “alienable” possessions, as (9) and (10) illustrate (Nath 2001: 21, (20)– (21)). (9)

(10)

Inalienable possession Ram-ɒ r du-khɒ n Ram-GEN two-CL ‘Ram has two hands.’

ɦ at

Alienable possession a. Ram-ɒ r du-to Ram-GEN two-CL ‘Ram had two servants.’ b.

mor e-ta I.GEN one-CL ‘I have a dog.’

ase has

hands

laguwa servant kukur dog

asil had ase have

Assamese predicates do not show agreement in nonnominative subject constructions. Proof that genitive subjects are in fact subjects comes from

36

Assamese Adjunct Control: A descriptive overview

two sources. First, they function as antecedents to anaphors, (11). Second, they function as the unpronounced arguments in control structures, (12). (11)

Ram-ɒ r niz-ɒ r uporot Ram-GEN self-GEN above/on ‘Ram got angry with himself.’

khɒ ŋ anger

(12)

Ram-ei [∆i thanda Ram-NOM [∆.GEN cold ni-bisar-e NEG-want-3 ‘Ram doesn’t want to feel cold.’

lagabo] feeling]

uthil raised

A further note on experiencer subjects is in order for the purpose of this study. Compare the sentences in (13). While (13a) and (13b) are somewhat synonymous, (13b) implies a more conscious effort on the part of the subject. Using kɔ r ‘do’ renders the subject more volitional. The same observation applies to (14a–b). (13)

(14)

a.

Ram-ɒ r e-ta buddɦ i khelal Ram-GEN one-CL idea played ‘Ram got an idea.’ OR ‘An idea occurred to Ram.’

b.

Ram-e e-ta Ram-NOM one-CL ‘Ram did/planned an idea.’

buddɦ i idea

a.

Ram-ɒ r phurti Ram-GEN exhilaration ‘Ram felt very happy.’

lagil felt

b.

Ram-e phurti Ram-NOM exhilaration ‘Ram celebrated/partied.’

kɔ ril-e did-3

kɔ ril-e did-3

To elaborate, experiential predicates with kɔ r ‘do’ allow expressions like ‘on purpose’ or ‘knowingly’, as (15a) and (16a) illustrate. The same expressions make sentences with nonvolitional experiential predicates unacceptable, (15b) and (16b).

Case in Assamese: A descriptive overview

(15)

(16)

a.

Ram-e janibuji e-ta buddɦ i Ram-NOM knowingly one-CL idea kɔ ril-e did-3 ‘Ram got an idea on purpose.’ Also meaning ‘Ram knowingly tricked someone.’

b.

*Ram-ɒ r janibuji e-ta buddɦ i khelal Ram-GEN knowingly one-CL idea played ‘An idea occurred to Ram on purpose.’

a.

Ram-e janibuji khɒ ŋ kɔ ril-e Ram-NOM knowingly anger did-3 ‘Ram got angry on purpose.’ Meaning ‘Ram knowingly expressed his anger.’

b.

*Ram-ɒ r janibuji Ram-GEN knowingly ‘Ram angered on purpose.’

khɒ ŋ anger

37

uthil did

Nevertheless, this observation does not deprive the nominative subjects in (13b) and (14b), as well as in (15a) and (16a), of being experiencers on a par with their genitive counterparts. According to Abbi (1991), experiential predicates can be divided into at least three categories: State Experiential, Process Experiential, and Stative Action Process Experiential. The first and second types describe a physical, mental, or emotional state (e.g., ‘be hungry’ or ‘get hungry’). The last type indicates that “an experiencer is in a certain state or condition with respect to an action undertaken by himself. In this respect, it is always reflexive” (pp. 255–256). Given Abbi’s remarks, khɒ ŋ uthil ‘anger raised’ and phurti lagil ‘exhilaration felt’ can be classified as state or process predicates that Case-mark their subjects genitive. The predicates khɒ ŋ kɔ rile ‘anger did’ and phurti kɔ rile ‘exhilaration did’, on the other hand, are Stative Action Process Experiential predicates that Case-mark their subject experiential nominative. The two types of predicates differ in meaning: khɒ ŋ uthil ‘anger raised’ and phurti lagil ‘exhilaration felt’ simply mean ‘get angry’ and ‘feel happy’ respectively, while khɒ ŋ kɔ rile ‘anger did’ and phurti kɔ rile ‘exhilaration did’ mean ‘express one’s anger’ (e.g., yell) and ‘celebrate’. The Case assigned by either type of predicate is related to the theta-role experiencer regardless of the morphological form. The reason why experiential nomina-

38

Assamese Adjunct Control: A descriptive overview

tive subjects are not considered simply nominative is based on empirical grounds. The two types of nominative subjects exhibit different behaviors in Adjunct Control structures, as we will see in Section 6.3. The following section briefly describes finite clauses in Assamese. The focus is mainly on the agreement behavior of finite predicates. 4. Finite clauses in Assamese Finite clauses in Assamese contain verbs that are inflected for aspect, tense, and agreement, in this order. There are three types of aspect in Assamese: imperfective -is, habitual -Ø, and perfective. The perfective collapses with the simple past into one portmanteau morpheme -il. Tense is also divided into three categories: past -il; present, which is associated with the stem itself; and future -ib. Regarding agreement, verbs inflect for person (1st, 2nd, and 3rd) and honorificity (only 2nd person is [+, –, or Ø honorific]). Assamese verbs do not inflect for gender or number. For example, all the forms of the verb likh ‘to write’ in (17) may be used in a finite clause to agree with a 3rd person, singular or plural, feminine or masculine subject. The variation in (17c) and (17e) is morphophonological (Goswami and Tamuli 2003: 422–423).1 (17)

a.

likh-Ø-e write-HABITUAL-3 ‘she/he/they write(s)’

b.

likh-ib-a write-FUT-3 ‘she/he/they will write’

c.

likh-is-e write-IMPERFECTIVE-3 ‘she/he/they has/have written’

d.

likh-il-e write-PAST-3 ‘she/he/they wrote’

Nonfinite clauses in Assamese

e.

39

likh-is-il-Ø write-IMPERFECTIVE-PAST-3 ‘she/he/they had written’

Variation in tense and/or aspect in finite clauses does not have an effect on Adjunct Control. This is why most of the examples of Adjunct Control will exhibit one tense form: the past. The following section provides a descriptive overview of nonfinite subordinate clauses. The focus is on adjuncts. 5. Nonfinite clauses in Assamese Assamese has two types of nonfinite subordinate clauses that function as adjuncts. The first type is what I will refer to as infinitive clauses (INF clauses). The second type is known as adverbial clauses or conjunctive participle clauses (CNP clauses) (Lindholm 1975; Klaiman 1981). Section 5.1 deals with INF clauses. Section 5.2 delineates the characteristics of CNP clauses, which are the chief domain of investigation of this study. 5.1. Infinitive clauses in Assamese An INF clause in Assamese contains a nonfinite verb. It may also have an overt subject that is Case-marked like the subject of a finite clause. The subordinate nonfinite verb may take several forms, depending on the intended meaning. Following are three examples. The first form in (18) is a nominal or gerundive form that is Case-marked like any noun phrase. It is followed by an overt complementizer when used in an INF clause. The forms in (19) and (20), on the other hand, do not take an overt complementizer. All three forms have the same characteristics with respect to control: no control interpretation is required. That is, the subject of an INF clause does not have to be coreferential with the subject of the matrix clause. (18)

Nominal: Verb stem + -a a. thak-a ⇒ b.

thak-a-r karone ⇒

‘keeping’ ‘because of keeping’

40

(19)

(20)

Assamese Adjunct Control: A descriptive overview

c.

[Ram-ɒ r tini-ta loguwa [Ram-GEN three-CL servant thak-a-r karone] xi/tar gɦ oiniyak-e keep-INF-GEN because] he.NOM/his wife-NOM gɦɒ r-ɒ r kam na-kɔ r-e house-GEN work NEG-do-3 ‘Because Ram has three servants, he/his wife doesn’t do housework.’

b.

[lora-to-e bɦ alkoi nas-a-r [boy-CL-NOM well dance-INF-GEN bɦ al lagil karone] tar mak-ɒ r because] his mother-GEN good felt ‘Because the boy danced well, his mother felt good.’

Contingent: Verb stem + -õte a. kha-õte ⇒ ‘while eating’ b.

[Ram-e bɦ at kha-õte] [Ram-NOM rice eat-INF] xi Prɒ xad-ɒ k gai thaka xunil-e he.NOM Proxad-ACC sing keep heard-3 ‘While Ram was eating rice, he heard Proxad singing.’

c.

[Ram-e ga-õte] Prɒ xad-e [Ram-NOM sing-INF] Proxad-NOM ‘While Ram was singing, Proxad danced.’

nasil-e danced-3

Future conditional: Verb stem + -(i)le a. kɔ r-ile ⇒ ‘if one does’ b.

[Ram-e ga-ile] Prɒ xad-e nasib-a [Ram-NOM sing-INF] Proxad-NOM will dance-3 ‘If Ram sings, Proxad will dance.’

c.

[Prɒ xad-ɒ r bɦ ok lag-ile] [Proxad-GEN hunger strike/feel-INF] bɦ at khaib-ɒ rice will eat-3 ‘If Proxad is hungry, he will eat rice.’

xi he.NOM

Nonfinite clauses in Assamese

41

The following section introduces another type of Assamese subordinate clause: the conjunctive participle or CNP clause. 5.2. Conjunctive participle clauses in Assamese Conjunctive participle clauses in the Indian subcontinent are a defining characteristic that South Asian languages inherited from Sanskrit (Dwarikesh 1971). In Assamese, as in most South Asian languages, CNP clauses are nonfinite clauses with no (overt) complementizer. Although the CNP clause and the matrix clause might have a causeeffect relation, they can be fairly translated into English as two clauses joined by and. Despite this conjunctive nature, however, CNP clauses behave like adverbial subordinate clauses – for example, unlike conjuncts, they may be embedded within another clause whose predicate they functionally modify – which is why they are considered adverbial participle clauses or adjuncts (see, e.g., Haspelmath 1995; Jayaseelan 2004; Masica 2005: 110). Assamese CNP verbs have a single form, presented in (21a). Note that the relation between the CNP clause and the matrix clause may be causal, (21b–d). Alternatively, the CNP clause may depict an event that is anterior to or simultaneous with that of the finite clause, (21e) (see Jansen 2004 for a similar observation). (21)

Verb stem + -i a. thak-i

⇒

‘keeping,

having

kept’

b.

Ram-e [xɒ mɒ i na-thak-i] Ram-NOM [time NEG-keep-CNP] bɦ at na-khal-e rice NEG-ate-3 ‘Having no time, Ram didn’t eat rice.’

c.

Ram [bɦ agɔ r lag-i] Ram.ABS [exhaustion feel-CNP] thakil kept ‘Having felt exhausted, Ram fell asleep.’

xui sleep

42

Assamese Adjunct Control: A descriptive overview

d.

Ram-ɒ r [train dɦ oribo na-ar-i] Ram-GEN [train catch NEG-able-CNP] uthil khɒ ŋ anger raised ‘Not being able to catch the train, Ram got angry.’

e.

Ram-e [kam-to kɔ r-i] Ram-NOM [job-CL do-CNP] ‘Ram did the job while having tea.’ ‘Having done the job, Ram had tea.’

saɦ tea OR

khal-e ate-3

The following section shows that CNP clauses are subordinate clauses despite their conjunctive meaning. 5.3. The subordinate nature of CNP clauses As mentioned above, semantically CNP clauses may denote a conjunctive meaning. Syntactically, however, they behave like adverbial clauses. For one thing, they do not obey the Coordinate Structure Constraint. This constraint disallows extraction of an element out of a conjunct (Ross 1967, cited in Kehler 1996). To illustrate from English, whereas (22a) is grammatical, (22b) is unacceptable because an NP is extracted out of a conjunct. (22)

a. b.

Tom ate a sandwich and drank a soda. *What did Tom eat a sandwich and drink _______?

To prove that CNP clauses are not conjuncts, we need to show that they do not obey the Coordinate Structure Constraint. First, however, we have to make sure that conventional conjuncts in Assamese actually do obey the Coordinate Structure Constraint. The sentences in (23) indicate that they do. Sentence (23a) is grammatical, just like (22a); sentence (23b) is ungrammatical for the same reason (22b) is. (23)

a.

Ram-e kitap e-khɒ n kinil-e Ram-NOM book one-CL bought-3 pɔ rɦ il-e aru alosani e-khɒ n and magazine one-CL read-3 ‘Ram bought a book and read a magazine.’

Nonfinite clauses in Assamese

b.

*alosani e-khɒ n Ram-e magazine one-CL Ram-NOM kinil-e aru _____ e-khɒ n one-CL bought-3 and _____ ‘A magazine, Ram bought a book and read.’

43

kitap book pɔ rɦ il-e read-3

In English, the Coordinate Structure Constraint can be violated without affecting grammaticality if there is a cause-effect relation between the conjuncts, as (24a–b) demonstrate (Kehler 1996: 2, (5), from Lakoff 1986). This point is important because many of the Assamese constructions we are dealing with may imply a cause-effect relation and might turn out to be grammatical for the wrong reasons. (24)

a. b.

The guys in the Caucasus drink this stuff and live to be a hundred. That’s the stuff that the guys in the Caucasus drink and live to be a hundred.

This observation does not hold for Assamese conventional conjuncts. That is, even if the relation between the conjuncts is that of cause and effect, extraction still induces ungrammaticality. To illustrate, sentence (25a) is a coordinate structure in which the two conjuncts may be considered as a sequence of a cause and an effect. However, extraction out of one of the conjuncts results in ungrammaticality, as (25b) indicates. (25)

a.

Ram-ɒ r khɒ ŋ uthil Ram-GEN anger raised bɦ aŋil-e aru mor gɦɒ r-to and my house-CL destroyed-3 ‘Ram got angry and destroyed my house.’

b.

*mor gɦɒ r-to Ram-ɒ r khɒ ŋ my house-CL Ram-GEN anger uthil aru ____ bɦ aŋil-e raised and ____ destroyed-3 ‘My house, Ram got angry and destroyed.’

Now we turn to structures with CNP clauses to see if they violate the Coordinate Structure Constraint. If they do, then they are conjuncts and they live up to their “name” both semantically and syntactically. Otherwise,

44

Assamese Adjunct Control: A descriptive overview

we can fairly assume that they are subordinate clauses, as the data seem to indicate. Sentences (26a–b) contain a CNP clause each. They can read as (27a–b) respectively and still be grammatical. That is, they are acceptable despite the NP extraction. (26)

(27)

a.

Ram-e [khɒ ŋ uth-i] Ram-NOM [anger get-CNP] gɦɒ r-to bɦ aŋil-e house-CL destroyed-3 ‘Having got angry, Ram destroyed my house.’

mor my

b.

Ram-e [kam-to kɔ r-i] Ram-NOM [job-CL do-CNP] khal-e ate-3 ‘Having done the job, Ram had tea.’

saɦ tea

a.

mor gɦɒ r-to Ram-e [khɒ ŋ uth-i] my house-CL Ram-NOM [anger get-CNP] _____ bɦ aŋil-e _____ destroyed-3 ‘My house, having got angry, Ram destroyed.’

b.

saɦ Ram-e [kam-to tea Ram-NOM [job-CL _____ khal-e _____ ate-3 ‘Tea, having done the job, Ram had.’

kɔ r-i] do-CNP]

Violating the Coordinate Structure Constraint is one way to prove that CNP clauses are subordinate clauses. Another criterion is “clause-internal word order” (Haspelmath 1995: 12). Coordinate clauses do not normally overlap. In other words, one conjunct cannot break the continuity of another conjunct. A subordinate clause, on the other hand, may be embedded in the matrix clause, breaking its continuity. The sentences in (28) and (29) indicate that a CNP clause may be realized either outside, (28a–b), or inside, (29a–b), the matrix clause. Notice that the pronounced subject in each of the sentences is Case-marked nominative by the matrix predicate. The CNP predicate in (29a) would Case-mark its subject genitive.

CNP clauses and Adjunct Control

(28)

(29)

a.

[ananda lag-i] Ram-e [happiness feel-CNP] Ram-NOM pagolor nisena nasil-e crazy person like danced-3 ‘Having felt happy, Ram danced like a crazy person.’

b.

[kitap-khɒ n khul-i] Prɒ xad-e [book-CL open-CNP] Proxad-NOM ‘Having opened the book, Proxad read.’ OR ‘Proxad opened the book and read.’

a.

Ram-e [ananda lag-i] Ram-NOM [happiness feel-CNP] pagolor nisena nasil-e crazy person like danced-3 ‘Having felt happy, Ram danced like a crazy person.’

b.

Prɒ xad-e [kitap-khɒ n khul-i] Proxad-NOM [book-CL open-CNP] ‘Having opened the book, Proxad read.’ OR ‘Proxad opened the book and read.’

45

pɔ rɦ il-e read-3

pɔ rɦ il-e read-3

Given the above data, I consider CNP clauses as subordinate clauses. More specifically, they are adjuncts, or adverbial subordinate clauses, whose function is to modify the matrix predicate (Haspelmath 1995: 3; Masica 2005: 110). The following section presents the Adjunct Control data. These data will be the subject of analysis in the following chapters. 6. CNP clauses and Adjunct Control One relevant feature of CNP clauses is that they obey what is called the Common-Subject Requirement (Lindholm 1975: 30), the Same-Subject Condition (Klaiman 1981: 88), or the Identical Subject Constraint (Subbarao and Arora 2005). This means that the unpronounced subject of the CNP clause and the subject of the matrix clause are obligatorily coreferential, and that a sentence with a CNP clause is an instance of Obligatory Control. In other words, the (b) sentences in (30)–(31) are infelicitous under the des-

46

Assamese Adjunct Control: A descriptive overview

ignated reading, even though the (a) sentences are provided as context or prior knowledge. (30)

(31)

a.

Prɒ xadi bɦ alkoi Proxad.ABS well ‘Proxad sang well.’

b.

*Ram-ɒ r [∆i bɦ alkoi ga-i] Ram-GEN [∆ well sing-CNP] bɦ al lagil good felt ‘Proxad sang well, and Ram felt good.’

a.

Prɒ xadi xɒ mɒ i Proxad.ABS time ‘Proxad didn’t have time.’

b.

xɒ mɒ i na-thak-i] *Ram-e [∆i Ram-NOM [∆ time NEG-keep-CNP] bɦ at na-khal-e rice NEG-ate-3 ‘Proxad having had no time, Ram didn’t eat rice.’

gal-e sang-3

na-thakil NEG-kept

This obligatory coreferentiality qualifies Assamese sentences with CNP clauses as control constructions. Typologically, there are three types of control: Forward Control (32a), Backward Control (32b), and Copy Control (32c) (Polinsky and Potsdam 2006). In Forward Control constructions, the matrix subject is pronounced, while the subordinate subject is implied. In Backward Control constructions, the opposite is true. In Copy Control constructions, both subjects are pronounced. (32)

a. b. c.

Forward Control [Matrix [Subordinate Subject…] Backward Control [Matrix [Subordinate Subject…] Copy Control [Matrix [Subordinate Subject…]

[Matrix Subject…]] [Matrix Subject…]] [Matrix Subject…]]

CNP clauses and Adjunct Control

47

Assamese shows evidence for all three types of control, although Forward and Copy Control structures are usually preferred to their Backward Control counterparts. I begin with Forward Control. 6.1. Forward Control in Assamese Forward Control into CNP clauses is a phenomenon that Assamese shares with most – if not all – South Asian languages. The following are examples from three Indo-Aryan languages, Konkani, Marathi, and Bengali. (33)

Konkani a. Kamal-aki [Δi/*k doon ghante Kamal-DAT [Δ.NOM two hours naants-unu] taap aaylo dance-CNP] fever came ‘Having danced for two hours, Kamal got sick.’ b.

(34)

[Δi/*k kushii ye-unu] [Δ.DAT happiness come-CNP] Kamal-nii naantsu laaglo Kamal-ERG dance did ‘Upon getting happy, Kamal danced.’

Marathi a. AruuN-nei [Δi/*k ʤewaN Arun-ERG [Δ.NOM meal banauun] movie baghitli prepare-CNP] movie watched ‘Having prepared dinner, Arun watched a movie.’ b.

[Δi/*k taap yeuun] [Δ.DAT fever come-CNP] aushad ghetle medication took ‘Arun got sick and took medication.’

AruuN-nei Arun-ERG

48 (35)

Assamese Adjunct Control: A descriptive overview

Bengali (adapted from Klaiman 1981: Chapter 4) a. Jodui [Δi/*k phal per-e] Jodu.NOM [Δ.NOM fruit pick-CNP] bikri korlo sale did ‘Having picked the fruit, Jodu sold it.’ b.

[Δi/*k lu leg-e] [Δ.GEN heatstroke affect-CNP] Jodui maaraa gaelo Jodu.NOM died ‘Having had a heatstroke, Jodu died.’

The above examples are instances of Forward Control in the sense that the matrix subject is pronounced, determining the identity of the unpronounced CNP subject. Assamese Forward Control structures are similar, as (36)–(54) show. (36)

[Δi/*k kam-to kɔ r-i] Rami [Δ.NOM work do-CNP] Ram.ABS ‘Having done the work, Ram left.’

(37)

Ram-ei [Δi/*k xɒ mɒ i na-thak-i] Ram-NOM [Δ.GEN time NEG-keep-CNP] bɦ at na-khal-e rice NEG-ate-3 ‘Having no time, Ram didn’t eat rice.’

(38)

[Δi/*k baɦ ut kam kɔ r-i] [Δ.NOM much work do-CNP] ɦɔ l ga bea body bad became ‘Having worked hard, Ram got sick.’

(39)

[Δi/*k ga bea hɔ -i] manuɦ -to-ei [Δ.GEN body bad become-CNP] man-CL-NOM lol-e dɒ rob medicine took-3 ‘Having got sick, the man took medication.’

gusi away

gɔ l went

Ram-ɒ ri Ram-GEN

CNP clauses and Adjunct Control

(40)

[Δi/*k ga bea hɔ -i] [Δ.GEN body bad become-CNP] bɦ agɔ r/dukh lagil manuɦ -to-ri man-CL-GEN tired/sad felt ‘Having got sick, the man felt tired/sad.’

(41)

Rami [Δi/*k bɦ agɔ r lag-i] Ram.ABS [Δ.GEN exhaustion feel-CNP] ‘Having felt exhausted, Ram fell asleep.’

xui sleep

(42)

[Δi/*k kukur-to ɦ eru-i] [Δ.NOM dog-CL lose-CNP] ɦɔ is-e sinta worried become-3 ‘Having lost his dog, Proxad is worried.’

Prɒ xad-ɒ ri Proxad-GEN

(43)

[Δi/*k kɒ tha-to xun-i] [Δ.NOM news-CL hear-CNP] dukh lagil sad felt ‘Having heard the news, Proxad felt sad.’

Prɒ xad-ɒ ri Proxad-GEN

(44)

[Δi/*k boyfriend-ok dekh-i] [Δ.NOM boyfriend-ACC see-CNP] laz lagil suali-zɒ ni-ri girl-CL-GEN shy felt ‘Having seen her boyfriend, the girl felt shy.’

(45)

[Δi/*k laz lag-i] Saritai [Δ.GEN shy feel-CNP] Sarita.ABS room-ot gɔ l room-LOC went ‘Having felt shy, Sarita went to her room.’

(46)

[Δi/*k bagɦ -ok dekh-i] [Δ.NOM tiger-ACC see-CNP] bɦɒ e lagil fear felt ‘Having seen a tiger, the dog got scared.’

thakil kept

tai her

kukur-to-ri dog-CL-GEN

49

50

Assamese Adjunct Control: A descriptive overview

(47)

[Δi/*k bɦɒ e lag-i] kukur-toi [Δ.GEN fear feel-CNP] dog-CL.ABS ‘Having got scared, the dog ran away.’

polai gɔ l escape went

(48)

Sarita-r i [Δi/*k marathon Sarita-GEN [Δ.NOM marathon lagil piaɦ thirst felt ‘Having run a marathon, Sarita felt thirsty.’

dɔ ur-i] run-CNP]

(49)

Sarita-ei [Δi/*k piaɦ Sarita-NOM [Δ.GEN thirst lemonade khal-e lemonade drank-3 ‘Having felt thirsty, Sarita drank lemonade.’

lag-i] feel-CNP]

(50)

[Δi/*k e-ta bɦ al buddɦ i khela-i] [Δ.GEN one-CL good idea play-CNP] phurti kɔ ril-e Ram-ei Ram-NOM party did-3 ‘Having got a nice idea, Ram celebrated.’

(51)

Ram-ɒ ri [Δi/*k e-ta Ram-GEN [Δ.GEN one-CL khel-i] bɦ al lagil play-CNP] good felt ‘Having got a nice idea, Ram felt good.’

(52)

[Δi/*k lottery jik-i] mor gɦ oiniyak-ɒ ri [Δ.NOM lottery win-CNP] my wife-GEN phurti lagil exhilaration felt ‘Having won the lottery, my wife felt very happy.’

(53)

mor gɦ oiniyak-ei [Δi/*k lottery jik-i] my wife-NOM [Δ.NOM lottery win-CNP] notun gɦɒ r kinil-e new house bought-3 ‘Having won the lottery, my wife bought a new house.’

bɦ al good

buddɦ i idea

CNP clauses and Adjunct Control

(54)

Ram-ɒ ri [Δi/*k phurti Ram-GEN [Δ.EXP.NOM exhilaration lagil bɦ ok hunger felt ‘Having had a party, Ram felt hungry.’

51

kɔ r-i] do-CNP]

6.2. Backward Control in Assamese As indicated in (32b), repeated here as (55), Backward Control is the case where the subordinate/CNP subject is pronounced and the matrix subject is implied. (55)

Backward Control [Matrix [Subordinate Subject…]

[Matrix Subject…]]

Backward Control is a phenomenon that Assamese shares with a number of South Asian languages. The following are examples from Telugu and Mizo. In both cases, the CNP subject is pronounced, while the coreferential matrix subject is unpronounced. (56)

Telugu (Haddad 2009a: 82, (30a–b)) a. ∆i/*k [Kumaar-kii aakali wees-i] ∆.NOM [Kumar-DAT hunger fall-CNP] sandwich tinnaa-Du sandwich ate-3.M.S ‘Having got hungry, Kumar ate a sandwich.’ b.

(57)

∆i/*k [Kumaar-kii jwaram wacc-i] ∆.NOM [Kumar-DAT fever.NOM come-CNP] mandulu waaDaa-Du medicines used-3.M.S ‘Having had a fever, Kumar took medication.’

Mizo (Subbarao 2004, in Davison 2008: 31, (9b)) ∆i/*k [Zovai tSutleng-ah a ∆.ERG [Zova.NOM bench-on 3.S Duh want ‘Zova wants to sit on the bench.’

tSu] sit.INF]

52

Assamese Adjunct Control: A descriptive overview

Assamese licenses Backward Control as well. However, the phenomenon is quite restricted. The restriction is mainly related to Case; Backward Control structures are considered acceptable if and only if the pronounced CNP subject is an Inherent Case-marked argument licensed by an experiential predicate. Sentences (58)–(66) are examples of Backward Control. (58)

Δi/*k [Ram-ɒ ri xɒ mɒ i na-thak-i] Δ.NOM [Ram-GEN time NEG-keep-CNP] bɦ at na-khal-e rice NEG-ate-3 ‘Having no time, Ram didn’t eat rice.’

(59)

[manuɦ -to-ri ga bea hɔ -i] Δi/*k [man-CL-GEN body bad become-CNP] Δ.NOM lol-e dɒ rob medicine took-3 ‘Having got sick, the man took medication.’

(60)

[manuɦ -to-ri ga bea hɔ -i] Δi/*k [man-CL-GEN body bad become-CNP] Δ.GEN bɦ agɔ r/dukh lagil tired/sad felt ‘Having got sick, the man felt tired/sad.’

(61)

Δi/*k [Ram-ɒ ri bɦ agɔ r Δ.ABS [Ram-GEN exhaustion xui thakil sleep kept ‘Having felt exhausted, Ram fell asleep.’

(62)

[Sarita-ri laz lag-i] Δi/*k [Sarita-GEN shy feel-CNP] Δ.ABS room-ot gɔ l room-LOC went ‘Having felt shy, Sarita went to her room.’

(63)

[kukur-to-ri bɦɒ e lag-i] Δi/*k polai gɔ l [dog-CL-GEN fear feel-CNP] Δ.ABS escape went ‘Having got scared, the dog ran away.’

lag-i] feel-CNP]

tai her

CNP clauses and Adjunct Control

(64)

Δi/*k [Sarita-ri piaɦ Δ.NOM [Sarita-GEN thirst lemonade khal-e lemonade drank-3 ‘Having felt thirsty, Sarita drank lemonade.’

(65)

[Ram-ɒ ri e-ta bɦ al buddɦ i khela-i] [Ram-GEN one-CL good idea play-CNP] Δi/*k phurti kɔ ril-e Δ.NOM party did-3 ‘Having got a nice idea, Ram celebrated.’

(66)

Δi/*k [Ram-ɒ ri e-ta bɦ al Δ.GEN [Ram-GEN one-CL good lagil khel-i] bɦ al play-CNP] good felt ‘Having got a nice idea, Ram felt good.’

53

lag-i] feel-CNP]

buddɦ i idea

While the experiential subject in each of (58)–(66) is genitive, sentences (67)–(68) contain subordinate nominative-experiential subjects. These are judged by some native speakers as less acceptable than sentences (58)–(66). (67)

?Δi/*k [Ram-ei phurti Δ.GEN [Ram-EXP.NOM exhilaration bɦ ok lagil hunger felt ‘Having had a party, Ram felt hungry.’

(68)

?[Ram-ei dukh [Ram-EXP.NOM sadness gusi gɔ l away went ‘Having made himself sad, Ram left.’

kɔ r-i] do-CNP]

kɔ r-i] do-CNP]

Δi/*k Δ.ABS

On the other hand, if the CNP predicate licenses a Structural Casemarked subject, Backward Control is judged as unacceptable, (69)–(75).

54

Assamese Adjunct Control: A descriptive overview

(69)

*[manuɦ -zɒ n-e baɦ ut kam kɔ r-i] [man-CL-NOM much work do-CNP] ɦɔ l ga bea body bad became ‘Having worked hard, the man got sick.’

Δ Δ.GEN

(70)

*[Prɒ xad-e kukur-to ɦ eru-i] [Proxad-NOM dog-CL lose-CNP] sinta ɦɔ is-e worried become-3 ‘Having lost his dog, Proxad is worried.’

Δ Δ.NOM

(71)

*[Prɒ xad-e kɒ tha-to xun-i] [Proxad-NOM news-CL hear-CNP] dukh lagil sad felt ‘Having heard the news, Proxad felt sad.’

Δ Δ.GEN

(72)

*[suali-zɒ ni-e boyfriend-ok [girl-CL-NOM boyfriend-ACC Δ laz lagil Δ.GEN shy felt ‘Having seen her boyfriend, the girl felt shy.’

dekh-i] see-CNP]

(73)

*[kukur-to-e bagɦ -ok dekh-i] [dog-CL-NOM tiger-ACC see-CNP] bɦɒ e lagil fear felt ‘Having seen a tiger, the dog got scared.’

Δ Δ.GEN

(74)

*Δ [Sarita-e marathon dɔ ur-i] Δ.GEN [Sarita-NOM marathon run-CNP] ‘Having run a marathon, Sarita felt thirsty.’

lagil felt

(75)

*[mor gɦ oiniyak-e lottery jik-i] Δ [my wife-NOM lottery win-CNP] Δ.GEN phurti lagil exhilaration felt ‘Having won the lottery, my wife felt very happy.’

piaɦ thirst

CNP clauses and Adjunct Control

55

Now consider the acceptable Backward Control structure in (76). Compared with the structures (69)–(75), (76) seems to stand out as an exception. Closer examination, however, shows that Assamese native speakers are likely to process the sentence as an instance of Forward Control. Here is why: the CNP subject is nominative, while the matrix subject is absolutive. The demarcation between these two types of Case, nominative and absolutive, is not as clear-cut as, say, the demarcation between nominative and genitive. As a matter of fact, nominative does replace absolutive in some instances, as already pointed out by Edwards (2003). According to Edwards, nominative Case indicates more responsibility on the part of the subject. To illustrate, compare (77) and (78) (from Edwards 2003: 53, (71a–b)). Ram is more responsible for his death in (78) than he is in (77). Note that the verb in (78) does not show agreement with the nominative subject, although in some instances it may. (76)

[Ram-e kam-to kɔ r-i] [Ram-NOM work do-CNP] gusi gɔ l away went ‘Having done the work, Ram left.’

(77)

Ram accident-ot mɔ ril Ram.ABS accident-LOC died ‘Ram died in an accident.’

(78)

Ram-e bɦ iri khua-r karone Ram-NOM cigarette smoking-GEN because ‘Ram died because of smoking cigarettes.’

Δ Δ.ABS

mɔ ril died

All this is to indicate that (76) is more likely to be interpreted by Assamese native speakers as (79), whereby the subject is licensed by the matrix clause. This may explain why it is not considered unacceptable on a par with the other ungrammatical instances of Backward Control. (79)

Ram-e [Δ kam-to kɔ r-i] gusi gɔ l Ram-NOM [Δ.NOM work do-CNP] away went ‘Having done the work, Ram left.’

The following section presents evidence for the less-studied phenomenon of Copy Control.

56

Assamese Adjunct Control: A descriptive overview

6.3 Copy Control Assamese shows evidence of the cross-linguistically rare phenomenon of Copy Control. Copy Control constructions involve a matrix subject and a CNP subject that are not only obligatorily coreferential but also both pronounced. A number of other South Asian languages seem to license similar structures. Telugu is one such language, as the sentences in (80) illustrate. Other South Asian languages that seem to license Copy Control are Marathi, Konkani, and Bengali, (81)–(83); however, more in-depth study of the phenomenon is required for these languages. (80)

(81)

Telugu (Haddad 2010a, (4)) a. [Kumaar-(ee) tappu cees-i] [Kumar.NOM-(EMPH) mistake do-CNP] Kumaar-ee edavatam modalupettaa-Du Kumar.NOM-EMPH crying started-3.M.S ‘Kumar started crying although he has made a mistake.’ b.

[Kumaar-(ee) annam vanD-i] [Kumar.NOM-(EMPH) rice make-CNP] Kumaar-ee paarabosaa-Du Kumar.NOM-EMPH threw away-3.M.S ‘Kumar threw away the food though it was he who cooked it.’

c.

[Kumaar-(ee) kuuragaayalu kon-i] [Kumar.NOM-(EMPH) vegetables buy-CNP] Kumaar-ee vanTa ceesaa-Du Kumar.NOM-EMPH cooking did-3.M.S ‘Kumar bought vegetables, and he cooked too.’

Marathi [AruuN-laa taap ye-uun] tya-ne [Arun-DAT fever come-CNP] he-ERG aushad ghetle medication took ‘Arun got sick, and he took medication.’

CNP clauses and Adjunct Control

(82)

(83)

Konkani [Kamal doon ghante nants-unu] [Kamal-NOM two hours dance-CNP] taap aaylo fever came ‘Kamal danced for two hours, and he got sick.’

57

takka he.DAT

Bengali [Jodu Ram-er upor rege giy-e] [Jodu.NOM Ram-GEN on anger do-CNP] hotocchara o-ke merei fello the idiot him-ACC beat him to death ‘Jodu got angry with Ram, and the idiot beat him to death.’

In Assamese, such structures are possible under the following three conditions. Condition 2 applies to all instances of South Asian Copy Control that I know of.   

Condition 1: The CNP clause contains an experiential predicate. Condition 2: The CNP clause is sentence-initial. Condition 3: The CNP subject is an R-expression (nonpronominal).

Condition 1 is based on the fact that Copy Control structures that involve nonexperiential CNP predicates are considered generally unacceptable. By comparison, Copy Control structures that contain experiential predicates are judged acceptable. The subject of an experiential predicate in Assamese is usually genitive. Sentences (84)–(91) are some examples. (84)

[Ram-ɒ r khɒ ŋ uth-i] [Ram-GEN anger raise-CNP] bɦ aŋil-e mor gɦɒ r-to my house-CL destroyed-3 ‘Having got angry, Ram destroyed my house.’

(85)

[Ram-ɒ r phurti lag-i] Ram-e [Ram-GEN exhilaration do-CNP] Ram-NOM pagolor nisena nasil-e crazy person like danced-3 ‘Having felt very happy, Ram danced like a crazy person.’

Ram-e Ram-NOM

58

Assamese Adjunct Control: A descriptive overview

(86)

[Ram-ɒ r bɦ agɔ r lag-i] [Ram-GEN exhaustion feel-CNP] xui thakil sleep kept ‘Having felt exhausted, Ram fell asleep.’

Ram Ram.ABS

(87)

[Ram-ɒ r xɒ mɒ i na-thak-i] [Ram-GEN time NEG-keep-CNP] bɦ at-o na-khal-e rice-even NEG-ate-3 ‘Having no time, Ram didn’t even eat rice.’

Ram-e Ram-NOM

(88)

[manuɦ -to-r ga bea hɔ -i] manuɦ -to-e [man-CL-GEN body bad become-CNP] man-CL-NOM lol-e dɒ rob medicine took-3 ‘Having got sick, the man took medication.’

(89)

[Sarita-r laz lag-i] Sarita [Sarita-GEN shy feel-CNP] Sarita.ABS room-ot gɔ l room-LOC went ‘Having felt shy, Sarita went to her room.’

tai her

(90)

[kukur-to-r bɦɒ e lag-i] kukur-to [dog-CL-GEN fear feel-CNP] dog-CL.ABS gɔ l went ‘Having got scared, the dog ran away.’

polai escape

(91)

[Sarita-r piaɦ lag-i] [Sarita-GEN thirst feel-CNP] lemonade khal-e lemonade drank-3 ‘Having felt thirsty, Sarita drank lemonade.’

Sarita-e Sarita-NOM

As noted in Section 3, there are two types of experiential predicates in Assamese, those that license genitive subjects and those that license experiential nominative subjects. The difference between the two types is illustrated in (15)–(16), repeated as (92)–(93). Sentences (92a) and (93a)

CNP clauses and Adjunct Control

59

contain what Abbi (1991) calls State Experiential and Process Experiential predicates. These license genitive subjects, and they do not allow the occurrence of adverbs like ‘intentionally’ or ‘knowingly’. Sentences (92b) and (93b), on the other hand, contain Stative Action Process Experiential predicates. In addition to being experiential, these predicates are volitional, which is why they license experiential-nominative subjects and they allow adverbs such as ‘knowingly’. (92)

(93)

a.

Ram-ɒ r (*janibuji) e-ta buddɦ i khelal Ram-GEN (knowingly) one-CL idea played ‘An idea occurred to Ram (*on purpose).’

b.

Ram-e janibuji e-ta buddɦ i kɔ ril-e Ram-NOM knowingly one-CL idea did-3 ‘Ram got an idea on purpose.’ Also meaning ‘Ram knowingly tricked someone.’

a.

Ram-ɒ r (*janibuji) Ram-GEN (knowingly) ‘Ram angered (*on purpose).’

b.

Ram-e janibuji khɒ ŋ kɔ ril-e Ram-NOM knowingly anger did-3 ‘Ram got angry on purpose.’ Meaning ‘Ram knowingly expressed his anger.’

khɒ ŋ anger

uthil did

What is pertinent to this section is that Assamese allows Copy Control, not only if the subject is an experiential genitive NP, but also if it is an experiential nominative NP, as (94)–(96) show. As Condition 1 above points out, Copy Control structures are judged acceptable as long as the CNP clause contains an experiential predicate. This restriction holds regardless of the morphological case of the CNP subject. (94)

[Ram-e khɒ ŋ kɔ r-i] Ram-e [Ram-EXP.NOM anger raise-CNP] Ram-NOM bɦ aŋil-e mor gɦɒ r-to my house-CL destroyed-3 ‘Having got angry (having expressed his anger), Ram destroyed my house.’

60

Assamese Adjunct Control: A descriptive overview

(95)

[Ram-e phurti kɔ r-i] [Ram-EXP.NOM exhilaration do-CNP] bɦ ok lagil Ram-ɒ r Ram-GEN hunger felt ‘Having had a party, Ram now felt hungry.’

(96)

[Ram-e dukh kɔ r-i] Ram-e [Ram-EXP.NOM sadness do-CNP] Ram-NOM bɦ at-o na-khal-e rice-even NEG-ate-3 ‘Having made himself sad, Ram didn’t even eat rice.’

etiya now

On the other hand, if the CNP subject is not genitive or experiential nominative, (97)–(105), judgments pertaining to Copy Control become inconsistent. Notice that the CNP clause is sentence-initial and the CNP subject is an R-expression. Apparently, the only reason why the sentences are generally considered unacceptable by native speakers is that the CNP predicate is not an experiential predicate. (97)

✓/*[manuɦ -zɒ n-e baɦ ut kam kɔ r-i] [man-CL-NOM much work do-CNP] manuɦ -zɒ n-ɒ r ga bea ɦɔ l man-CL-GEN body bad became ‘Having worked hard, the man got sick.’

(98)

✓/*[Prɒ xad-e kukur-to ɦ eru-i] [Proxad-NOM dog-CL lose-CNP] sinta ɦɔ is-e Prɒ xad-ɒ r Proxad-GEN worried become-3 ‘Having lost his dog, Proxad is worried.’

(99)

✓/*[Prɒ xad-e kɒ tha-to xun-i] [Proxad-NOM news-CL hear-CNP] Prɒ xad-ɒ r dukh lagil Proxad-GEN sad felt ‘Having heard the news, Proxad felt sad.’

CNP clauses and Adjunct Control

(100)

✓/*[suali-zɒ ni-e boyfriend-ok [girl-CL-NOM boyfriend-ACC lagil suali-zɒ ni-ɒ r laz girl-CL-GEN shy felt ‘Having seen her boyfriend, the girl felt shy.’

(101)

✓/*[kukur-to-e bagɦ -ok dekh-i] [dog-CL-NOM tiger-ACC see-CNP] kukur-to-r bɦɒ e lagil dog-CL-GEN fear felt ‘Having seen a tiger, the dog got scared.’

(102)

✓/*[Sarita-e marathon dɔ ur-i] [Sarita-NOM marathon run-CNP] lagil Sarita-r piaɦ Sarita-GEN thirst felt ‘Having run a marathon, Sarita felt thirsty.’

(103)

✓/*[Ram-e kam-to [Ram-NOM work gusi gɔl away went ‘Having done the work, Ram left.’

kɔ r-i] do-CNP]

(104)

✓/*[Ram-e kukur-to [Ram-NOM dog-CL dukh lagil Ram-ɒ r Ram.GEN sad felt ‘Having lost his dog, Ram felt sad.’

ɦ eru-i]

(105)

61

dekh-i] see-CNP]

Ram Ram.ABS

lose-CNP]

✓/*[Ram-e lottery jik-i] [Ram-NOM lottery win-CNP] Ram-ɒ r phurti lagil Ram.GEN exhilaration felt ‘Having won the lottery, Ram felt very happy.’

The acceptable examples of Copy Control in this section contain two Rexpressions that are exact copies of the same token – Case-marking notwithstanding. Alternatively, the matrix clause may contain a pronoun or an

62

Assamese Adjunct Control: A descriptive overview

epithet that is coreferential with the CNP subject, as sentences (106)–(111) show. (106)

[Ram-ɒ r khub bɦ ok lag-i] [Ram-GEN very hunger feel-CNP] xi/besera-to-e posa bɦ at khal-e he.NOM/poor guy-CL-NOM stale rice ate-3 ‘Ram felt very hungry, and he/the poor guy ate stale rice.’

(107)

[Ram-e khɒ ŋ [Ram-EXP.NOM anger mor xi/gadɦ a-to-e he.NOM/donkey-CL-NOM my ‘Ram got angry (expressed his anger), my house.’

(108)

[manuɦ -to-r ga bea hɔ -i] [man-CL-GEN body bad become-CNP] lol-e xi/besera-to-e dɒ rob he.NOM/poor guy-CL-NOM medicine took-3 ‘The man got sick, and he/the poor guy took medication.’

(109)

[Sarita-r laz lag-i] tai [Sarita-GEN shy feel-CNP] she.ABS room-ot gɔ l room-LOC went ‘Sarita felt shy, and she went to her room.’

tai her

(110)

[kukur-to-r bɦɒ e lag-i] xi [dog-CL-GEN fear feel-CNP] he.ABS gɔ l went ‘The dog got scared, and he ran away.’

polai escape

(111)

[Sarita-r piaɦ lag-i] [Sarita-GEN thirst feel-CNP] lemonade khal-e lemonade drank-3 ‘Sarita felt thirsty, and she drank lemonade.’

kɔ r-i] raise-CNP] gɦɒ r-to bɦ aŋil-e house-CL destroyed-3 and he/the idiot destroyed

tai she.NOM

CNP clauses and Adjunct Control

63

A word is in order regarding how Assamese native speakers seem to process sentences with CNP clauses. A speaker may be presented with a sentence that begins with a CNP clause with a pronounced CNP subject, (112a). If the speaker has to finish the sentence with a matrix clause that Case-marks its subject differently from the CNP clause – for example, the matrix clause in (112b) licenses a nominative subject, which is different from the genitive CNP subject in (112a) – then she or he starts the matrix clause with a pronounced subject, which may be an exact copy of the Rexpression in the CNP clause or a pronoun or an epithet. The outcome is Copy Control, which the speaker seems to prefer over Backward Control. Descriptively, not pronouncing the matrix subject means that the structure qualifies as a Backward Control construction, and (as noted earlier) Assamese native speakers seem to prefer Forward and Copy Control over Backward Control. (112)

a.

[Ram-ɒ r [Ram-GEN

b.

Ram-e/xi/besera-to-e Ram-NOM/he.NOM/poor guy-CL-NOM bɦ at khal-e rice ate-3

khub very

bɦ ok hunger

lag-i] feel-CNP] posa stale

Nevertheless, if both the CNP and the matrix predicates license the same Case, Copy Control becomes redundant, although not unacceptable. In this case, Forward Control is preferred. For example, when presented with (113a–b), speakers automatically choose the latter, considering the former acceptable but redundant. When both the matrix and CNP predicates check the same Case (e.g., nominative) on their subjects, speakers assign the pronounced subject to the matrix clause, leaving the CNP subject silent, as (113c) indicates. Note, however, that an epithet makes the sentence sound less redundant. (113)

a.

Ram-e lottery jik-i xi notun Ram-NOM lottery win-CNP he.NOM new gɦɒ r kinil-e house bought-3 ‘Having won the lottery, Ram bought a new house.’

64

Assamese Adjunct Control: A descriptive overview

b.

Ram-e lottery jik-i notun Ram-NOM lottery win-CNP new gɦɒ r kinil-e house bought-3 ‘Having won the lottery, Ram bought a new house.’

c.

Ram-e [lottery jik-i] notun Ram-NOM [lottery win-CNP] new gɦɒ r kinil-e house bought-3 ‘Having won the lottery, Ram bought a new house.’

Most importantly, the two pronounced subjects in Assamese Copy Control have to be coreferential. Disjoint subjects result in ungrammaticality, as sentences (114)–(116) illustrate. (114)

*[Ram-ɒ ri khɒ ŋ uth-i] [Ram-GEN anger raise-CNP] gusi gɔ l xik/Prɒ xad he.ABS/Proxad.ABS away went ‘Ram got angry, and Proxad left.’

(115)

*[Ram-ɒ ri xɒ mɒ i na-thak-i] [Ram-GEN time NEG-keep-CNP] bɦ at-o na-khal-e xik/ Prɒ xad-e he.NOM/Proxad-NOM rice-even NEG-ate-3 ‘Ram didn’t have time, and Proxad didn’t even eat rice.’

(116)

*[Ram-e lottery jik-i] tar gɦ oiniyak-ɒ r [Ram-NOM lottery win-CNP] his wife-GEN phurti lagil exhilaration felt ‘Ram won the lottery, and his wife felt very happy.’

In addition, Copy Control is unacceptable if the CNP clause is not sentence-initial, (117), and/or if the CNP subject is pronominal, (118).

CNP clauses and Adjunct Control

(117)

(118)

a.

*Ram-e [tar/Ram-ɒ r xɒ mɒ i Ram-NOM [he.GEN/Ram-GEN time na-khal-e na-thak-i] bɦ at NEG-keep-CNP] rice NEG-ate-3 ‘Ram had no time, and he didn’t eat rice.’

b.

*manuɦ -to-e [manuɦ -to-r/besera-to-r man-CL-NOM [man-CL-GEN/poor guy-CL-GEN ga bea hɔ -i] dɒ rob lol-e body bad become-CNP] medicine took-3 ‘The man got sick, and the poor guy took medication.’

a.

*[tar bɦ agɔ r lag-i] [he.GEN exhaustion feel-CNP] xi/Ram xui thakil he/Ram.ABS sleep kept ‘Having felt exhausted, Ram now fell asleep.’

b.

*[tar bɦɒ e lag-i] kukur-to [he.GEN fear feel-CNP] dog-CL.ABS polai gɔ l escape went ‘Having got scared, the dog ran away.’

65

The Assamese data presented in Sections 6.1 through 6.3 indicate that structures with CNP clauses require a control interpretation. Exceptions do exist, however. These are discussed in the following section. 6.4. Exceptions Although the Same Subject Condition is usually obeyed, and thus control is normally enforced, violations do occur. Observe structures (119)–(125), for example. Notice that, contrary to expectation, disjoint subjects are allowed in the environment of a CNP clause. (119)

[dɦ umuɦ a aɦ -i] boɦ ut gos [storm.ABS come-CNP] many trees.ABS ‘A storm came and many trees got broken.’

bɦ angil broke

66

Assamese Adjunct Control: A descriptive overview

(120)

[e-ta gɦɒ r-ot zui lag-i] [one-CL house-LOC fire.ABS happen-CNP] mɔ ril manuɦ people.ABS died ‘A house burned and many people died.’

(121)

[Shimla-t boroph por-i] Delhi-t [Simla-LOC snow.ABS fall-CNP] Delhi-LOC thanda ɦɔ l cold.ABS became ‘The snow having fallen in Simla, it became cold in Delhi.’

(122)

[bahirat thanda por-i] gɦɒ r-ot [outside cold.ABS fall-CNP] house-LOC ɦɔ l thanda cold.ABS became ‘It having become cold outside, it became cold in the house.’

(123)

[borokhum por-i] kheti [rain.ABS fall-CNP] plants.ABS ‘The rain having fallen, the crop grew.’

barɦ il grow

(124)

[wall bɦ aŋ-i] xilguti [wall.ABS destroy-CNP] stones.ABS ‘The wall having collapsed, stones fell.’

poril fell

(125)

bɦ aŋ-i] [sɔ ki-khɒ n [chair-CL.ABS destroy-CNP] ‘The chair broke, and Ram fell off.’

Ram Ram.ABS

boɦ ut many

poril fell

Just as Adjunct Control into CNP clauses is not unique to Assamese but common to most South Asian languages, so violations of adjunct control also occur in many of these languages (e.g., Bengali (Klaiman 1981), Marathi (Pandharipande 1997), Hindi (Davison 1981), and Tamil (Lindholm 1975)); see Haddad 2009b and Chapter 5 of this monograph. Klaiman’s is a systematic study on exactly this issue. The author examines Bengali CNP clauses and arrives at the following conclusion: the Same Subject Condition applies when either the matrix clause or the CNP clause expresses a “volitional activity.” If the activities in both clauses are nonvolitional, the condition can be violated (Klaiman 1981: 120). This generalization applies

Conclusion

67

to Assamese. If either of the activities in (119)–(120) is volitional, the sentences become unacceptable, as illustrated in (126)–(127). In (126) the CNP predicate is volitional, and in (127) the matrix clause is volitional. Both sentences are ungrammatical. (126)

*[Ram-e gɦɒ r-to zui laga-i] [Ram-NOM house-CL fire happen-CNP] manuɦ mɔ ril people.ABS died ‘Ram burned the house; many people died.’

(127)

*[e-ta gɦɒ r-ot zui lag-i] [one-CL house-LOC fire happen-CNP] boɦ ut manuɦ -e police-aloi phone kɔ ril-e many people.NOM police-DAT phone did-3 ‘A house burned and many people called the police.’

boɦ ut many

Commenting on a similar case in Bengali, Klaiman adds: I hope I have shown that the conditioning is to a very large extent semantic, and that it is impossible to adequately describe any of these processes without reference to the underlying semantic opposition VOLITIONAL / NONVOLITIONAL… The one possibility I would confidently rule out is that any existing theoretical model can handle the facts. The material presented in this study calls for a new approach to meaning in grammar. (1981: 125–126)

Chapter 5 suggests that this semantic restriction is also a conspiracy in the syntax and that the examples that violate the Same Subject Condition are in fact instances of Obligatory Control. 7. Conclusion This chapter presented a linguistic overview of Assamese morphosyntax, highlighting aspects that are relevant to the topic of Adjunct Control. One aspect that is most pertinent for our purposes is the licensing of Casemarked subjects in the different types of clauses. Assamese has Inherent and Structural Case-marked subjects. The two types are licensed in finite as well as in INF clauses, while the status of Structural Case-marked subjects in CNP clauses is uncertain (Table 2-2). In Backward Control structures,

68

Assamese Adjunct Control: A descriptive overview

such subjects are judged as degraded or unacceptable. In Copy Control structures, some speakers consider them acceptable. Table 2-2. Subjects licensed in Assamese Type Form Inherent Case Structural Case

GEN EXP.NOM NOM ABS

-ɒ r -e -e/-Ø -Ø

Finite clauses ✓

INF clauses ✓

CNP clauses ✓

✓

✓

✓/?/ *

In addition, Assamese has nonfinite conjunctive participle (CNP) clauses that function as adjuncts. The language shows evidence for Adjunct Control into CNP clauses, licensing Forward, Backward, and Copy Control; Backward and Copy Control structures are generally considered unacceptable if the CNP subject is Structural Case-marked. The following chapter presents a detailed analysis of Forward and Backward Adjunct Control in Assamese. It provides an account of the conditions that drive and constrain their occurrence. It also deals with the problems that the analysis brings about, especially as related to Case Theory.

Chapter 3 Forward/Backward Adjunct Control: The analysis

1. Introduction This chapter provides an analysis of Forward and Backward Adjunct Control in Assamese. In both types of control, only one of the two coreferential subjects in a given structure is pronounced. In Forward Control, the pronounced subject is licensed by the predicate in the matrix clause, (1a). In Backward Control, on the other hand, the pronounced subject is licensed by the subordinate/CNP predicate, (1b). In both cases, the overt subject determines the identity of the unpronounced subject. (1)

a. b.

Forward Control [Matrix [CNP Subject…] Backward Control [Matrix [CNP Subject…]

[Matrix Subject…]] [Matrix Subject…]]

The chapter is organized as follows. Section 2 puts forth the structures analyzed in the chapter. Although these structures were documented in Chapter 2, this section provides more control structures to show that Case differences or similarities between the CNP subject and the matrix subject have no say in the type of Adjunct Control that is licensed. Section 3 shows that the Adjunct Control structures under examination are instances of Obligatory Control. This is important because within the framework of the Movement Theory of Control, Nonobligatory Control structures are not derived via movement. Rather, they are analyzed as involving pro. This is the same pro that is believed to exist in pro-drop languages. If the Assamese control structures that this study is concerned with are occurrences of Nonobligatory Control, the discussion in the rest of the chapter becomes irrelevant. Section 4 delineates the steps involved in the derivation of Forward and Backward Control structures in Assamese. Both types of control are analyzed as instances of sideward movement à la Nunes (2004). If the analysis of control as movement is on the right track, this means that the subject in Assamese Adjunct Control moves out of one Case position into a new Case position. That is, it undergoes multiple Case checking. This idea is proble-

70

Forward/Backward Adjunct Control: The analysis

matic on both theoretical and empirical grounds. Sections 5 and 6 address this issue and propose a solution. Section 7 provides a summary and a conclusion. 2. Forward/Backward Control: The facts Before we look at the Assamese data, observe the sentences in (2) from Telugu. These are Forward Control structures similar to the Assamese Adjunct Control sentences we saw in chapter 2. All three instances of Adjunct Control, (2a–c), involve a Structural Case-marked subject in the matrix clause. (2)

Telugu a. [Kumaari [∆i koopam wacc-i] [Kumar.NOM [∆.DAT anger get-CNP] naa illu kuulcaa-Du] my house destroyed-3.M.S] ‘Having got angry, Kumar destroyed my house.’ b.

[Kumaari [∆i laybrarii-ki weLL-i] [Kumar.NOM [∆.NOM library-DAT go-CNP] pustakam cadiwaa-Du] book read-3.M.S] ‘Having gone to the library, Kumar read a book.’

c.

[Kumaari [∆i aakali [Kumar.NOM [∆.DAT hunger.NOM saandwic tinnaa-Du] sandwich ate-3.M.S] ‘Having got hungry, Kumar ate a sandwich.’

wees-i] fall-CNP]

If, on the other hand, the matrix subject is Inherent Case-marked – in this case, dative – Adjunct Control into CNP clauses becomes unacceptable or degraded at best, as (3a–d) show.

Forward/Backward Control: The facts

(3)

71

Telugu a. ?/*[Kumaar atani bhaarya-to diner his wife-with dinner [Kumar.NOM cees-tuu] Kumaar-ki Nidra waccin-di take-CNP] Kumar-DAT sleep came-3.N.S ‘While having dinner with his wife, Kumar became sleepy.’ b.

?/*[Kumaar waana-loo taDis-i] [Kumar.NOM rain-in get wet-CNP] Kumaar-ki daggu-u jalubu-u waccin-yi Kumar-DAT cough-and cold-and came-3.N.P ‘Having got wet in the rain, Kumar caught a cold and a cough.’

c.

?/*Kumaar-ki [Kumaar illu Kumar-DAT [Kumar.NOM house pooy-i] picci paTTin-di lose-CNP] craziness caught-3.N.S ‘Having lost his house, Kumar went crazy.’

d.

*Sarita-ki [Sarita France-loo Sarita-DAT [Sarita.NOM France-in perig-i] French baagaa waccin-di grow up-CNP] French well came-3.N.S ‘Having grown up in France, Sarita spoke good French.’

I do not have an explanation for the restriction in (3). This is not an isolated phenomenon, however; a similar restriction on control structures exists in Hindi. Whereas Telugu seems to disprefer dative subjects in the matrix clauses of control structures, Hindi disallows dative subjects in subordinate clauses. This fact is illustrated in (4). Sentence (4a) has an experiential predicate and a dative subject. The same structure is used as a nonfinite clause in (4b). The sentence is ungrammatical (Davison 1993: 47–49, (3) and (6a); see also Davison 2008). (4)

Hindi a. pitaa-koo apnee bhaaii-par father-DAT self brother-on ‘Father is angry with his brother.’

kroodh aata hai anger come is

72

Forward/Backward Adjunct Control: The analysis

b.

*pitaa [bhaaii-par kroodh aa-naa] father [brother-on anger come-(nonfinite)] nahii caahtaa not want ‘Father does not want to get angry at his brother.’

In the rest of this section, I show that the aforementioned restrictions do not apply to Assamese Adjunct Control. 2.1. Forward Control Unlike Adjunct Control in Telugu, Assamese Adjunct Control is not subject to Case-related restrictions. The sentences in (5)–(8) are examples of Assamese Forward Control. In (5)–(6), the Forward Control structures involve CNP and matrix subjects that are Case-marked differently. In (7)–(8), the CNP and matrix subjects are Case-marked alike. The examples show that both Structural Case and Inherent Case are allowed in the matrix and CNP clauses. (5)

CNP subject: Inherent Case – Matrix subject: Structural Case a. [Δi/*k gɦɒ r-ot amoni lag-i] [Δ.GEN house-LOC boredom feel-CNP] party gɔ l Upanitai Upanita.ABS party went ‘Having felt bored at home, Upanita went to a party.’ b.

[Δi/*k lobɦ lag-i] [Δ.GEN greed feel-CNP] cake-to khal-e cake-CL ate-3 ‘Proxad got greedy and ate the cake.’

Prɒ xad-ei Proxad-NOM

c.

[Δi/*k andɦ ar-ot bɦɒ e lag-i] [Δ.GEN dark-LOC fear feel-CNP] light-to zolal-e baccha-to-ei child-CL-NOM light-CL turned on-3 ‘Having felt scared in the dark, the child turned on the light.’

Forward/Backward Control: The facts

(6)

73

d.

[Δi/*k thanda lag-i] Sarita-ei [Δ.GEN cold feel-CNP] Sarita-NOM jacket pindɦ il-e jacket wore-3 ‘Having felt cold, Sarita put on a jacket.’

e.

Ram-ei [Δi/*k phurti lag-i] Ram-NOM [Δ.GEN exhilaration feel-CNP] pagolor nisena nasil-e crazy person like danced-3 ‘Having felt very happy, Ram danced like a crazy person.’

CNP subject: Structural Case – Matrix subject: Inherent Case a. Ram-ɒ ri [Δi/*k Sarita-k dukh Ram-GEN [Δ.NOM Sarita-ACC sad loga-i] bea lagil make feel-CNP] bad felt ‘Having made Sarita sad, Ram felt bad.’ b.

[Δi/*k porikha pass kɔ r-i] [Δ.NOM exam pass do-CNP] satro-zɒ n-ɒ ri gorob lagil student-to-GEN pride felt ‘Having passed the exam, the student felt proud.’

c.

Ram-ɒ ri [Δi/*k porikha-t Ram-GEN [Δ.NOM exam-LOC khɒ ŋ uthil kɔ r-i] do-CNP] anger raised ‘Having failed the exam, Ram got angry.’

d.

[Δi/*k gutei din okole kam kɔ r-i] [Δ.NOM all day alone work do-CNP] employee-to-ri amoni lagil employee-CL-GEN boredom felt ‘Having worked all day all alone, the employee felt bored.’

fail fail

74

Forward/Backward Adjunct Control: The analysis

e.

(7)

[Δi/*k rodo-t dɔ ur-i] [Δ.NOM sun-LOC run-CNP] piaɦ lagil suali-zɒ ni-ri girl-CL-GEN thirst felt ‘Having run in the sun, the girl felt thirsty.’

CNP subject: Structural Case – Matrix subject: Structural Case a. [Δi/*k gɦɒ r-ot aɦ -i] [Δ.NOM house-LOC come-CNP] manuɦ -to-ei ga dɦ ul-e man-CL-NOM body wash-3 ‘The man came home and took a shower.’ b.

[Δi/*k gutei din kam kɔ r-i] [Δ.NOM all day work do-CNP] break lol-e manuɦ -to-ei man-CL-NOM break took-3 ‘Having worked all day, the man took a break.’

c.

[Δi/*k por-i] Prɒ xad-ei [Δ.ABS fall-CNP] Proxad-NOM bɦ aŋil-e broke-3 ‘Proxad fell down and broke his arm.’

ɦ at

hand

d.

[Δi/*k kam xekh kɔ r-i] [Δ.NOM work complete do-CNP] et cup coffee khal-e Upanita-ei Upanita-NOM one cup coffee drank-3 ‘Having finished her work, Upanita had a cup of coffee.’

e.

[Δi/*k mall-ot go-i] mor [Δ.NOM mall-LOC go-CNP] my bɦ ontiy-ei e-ta notun kapur kinil-e sister-NOM one-CL new dress bought-3 ‘My sister went to the mall and bought a new dress.’

Forward/Backward Control: The facts

(8)

75

CNP subject: Inherent Case – Matrix subject: Inherent Case a. Ram-ɒ ri [Δi/*k xadu kɒ tha eta-t Ram-GEN [Δ.GEN small matter one-LOC bea lagil khɒ ŋ uth-i] anger raise-CNP] bad felt ‘Having got angry for a silly reason, Ram felt bad.’ b.

[Δi/*k boyfriend-ɒ r lɒ gɒ t amoni [Δ.EXP.NOM boyfriend-GEN with boredom pa-i] Sarita-ri asorit lagil happen-CNP] Sarita-GEN surprised felt ‘Having got bored with her boyfriend, Sarita felt surprised.’

c.

[Δi/*k eman sinta kɔ r-i] [Δ.EXP.NOM a lot worry did-CNP] Sarita-ri ga bea ɦɔl Sarita-GEN body bad became ‘Having worried so much, Sarita felt sick.’

d.

Ram-ɒ ri [Δi/*k e-ta bɦ al Ram-GEN [Δ.GEN one-CL good khel-i] bɦ al lagil play-CNP] good felt ‘Having got a nice idea, Ram felt good.’

e.

ga bea hɔ -i] [Δi/*k [Δ.GEN body bad become-CNP] manuɦ -to-ri bɦ agɔ r/dukh lagil man-CL-GEN tired/sad felt ‘Having got sick, the man felt tired/sad.’

buddɦ i idea

Forward Control is obvious in the structures in (5) and (6); the morphological case realized on the matrix subject is different from the morphological case that would be realized on the CNP subject. In these structures, the Case marking of the pronounced subjects shows that they are licensed by the matrix predicates and that the structures are instances of Forward Control. In most of the structures in (7) and (8), on the other hand, the matrix subject has the same morphological case that the CNP subject would have. This means that the structures can be instances of Forward Control. At the

76

Forward/Backward Adjunct Control: The analysis

same time, they may be analyzed as instances of Backward Control. In the latter case, the CNP subject is overt and the matrix subject is implied. To illustrate, observe the sentences in (9) and (10). Sentences (9a) and (10a) are instances of Forward Control. However, they can also be read as Backward Control structures, (9b) and (10b). Both types of control result in the same word order, which is why they cannot be teased apart. (9)

(10)

a.

Ram-ei [Δi/*k lottery jik-i] Ram-NOM [Δ.NOM lottery win-CNP] notun gɦɒ r kinil-e new house bought-3 ‘Having won the lottery, Ram bought a new house.’

b.

Δi/*k [Ram-ei lottery jik-i] Δ.NOM [Ram-NOM lottery win-CNP] notun gɦɒ r kinil-e new house bought-3 ‘Having won the lottery, Ram bought a new house.’

a.

Ram-ɒ ri [Δi/*k e-ta bɦ al Ram-GEN [Δ.GEN one-CL good khela-i] bɦ al lagil play-CNP] good felt ‘Having got a nice idea, Ram felt good.’

buddɦ i idea

b.

Δi/*k [Ram-ɒ ri e-ta bɦ al Δ.GEN [Ram-GEN one-CL good khela-i] bɦ al lagil play-CNP] good felt ‘Having got a nice idea, Ram felt good.’

buddɦ i idea

This issue is important because in some languages, Backward Control is enforced under certain circumstances. For example, Telugu Backward Control is enforced if the matrix subject is a time expression, as (11) and (12) illustrate. Sentences (11a) and (12a) are instances of Backward Control. Once they are realized as Forward Control structures, (11b) and (12b), they are judged as ungrammatical. Note that the matrix clauses in (11) and (12) license Inherent Case-marked subjects, which is at odds with the above observation, namely, that Telugu Adjunct Control into CNP clauses is judged as degraded if the matrix predicate licenses a dative subject. I do not ex-

Forward/Backward Control: The facts

77

plain these restrictions in this monograph. See Haddad and Potsdam, to appear, for discussion of similar restrictions in other languages. (11)

Telugu a. [Kumaar illu-ni kaalc-i] [Kumar.NOM house-ACC burn-CNP] oka samwatsaram ayyin-di one year happened-3.N.S ‘It’s been a year since Kumar burned the house.’ b.

(12)

*[illu-ni kaalc-i] Kumaar-ki [house-ACC burn-CNP] Kumar-DAT oka samwatsaram ayyin-di one year happened-3.N.S ‘It’s been a year since Kumar burned the house.’

Telugu a. [Kumaar-ki jwaram waac-i] [Kumar-DAT fever come-CNP] muuDu roojulu ayyin-di three days happened-3.N.S ‘It’s been three days since Kumar had a fever.’ b.

*[jwaram waac-i] Kumaar-ki [fever come-CNP] Kumar-DAT muuDu roojulu ayyin-di three days happened-3.N.S ‘It’s been three days since Kumar had a fever.’

Assamese does not have such restrictions on Forward Control. To make sure that Forward Control is allowed across the board, (9a) and (10a) are repeated in (13), only this time the CNP clauses are realized sentenceinitially. Notice that the overt subjects are pronounced in the matrix clause, which is an indication that (9a) and (10a) are Forward Control structures. (13)

a.

[Δi/*k lottery jik-i] Ram-ei [Δ.NOM lottery win-CNP] Ram-NOM notun gɦɒ r kinil-e new house bought-3 ‘Having won the lottery, Ram bought a new house.’

78

Forward/Backward Adjunct Control: The analysis

b.

[Δi/*k e-ta bɦ al buddɦ i khela-i] [Δ.GEN one-CL good idea play-CNP] bɦ al lagil Ram-ɒ ri Ram-GEN good felt ‘Having got a nice idea, Ram felt good.’

It could be argued that the pronounced subject in each sentence belongs to the CNP clause and that it is extraposed to a clause-final position. Extraposition of this type leads to ungrammaticality, as illustrated in (14). In both sentences, the pronounced subject is licensed by the CNP clause, as Case shows. The sentences are ungrammatical because the CNP subject is extraposed to a postverbal position. (14)

a.

*[phurti lag-i Ram-ɒ r] [exhilaration feel-CNP Ram-GEN] Δ pagolor nisena nasil-e Δ.NOM crazy person like danced-3 ‘Having felt very happy, Ram danced like a crazy person.’

b.

*[bɦ agɔ r lag-i Ram-ɒ r] [exhaustion feel-CNP Ram-GEN] xui thakil sleep kept ‘Having felt exhausted, Ram fell asleep.’

Δ Δ.ABS

It is worth noting that the ungrammaticality of the sentences in (14) follows from the fact that the verb in Assamese canonically occurs clausefinally in nonfinite clauses. OVS word order is allowed in finite structures, (15), in which case the postverbal NP is interpreted as an afterthought. The bottom line is that the pronounced subjects in (9a) and (10a), as well as in (7) and (8), belong to the matrix clauses. In other words, the structures are instances of Forward Control. Whether the CNP subject and the matrix subject are Case-marked differently or alike has no influence on the type of control that is allowed. (15)

a.

pagolor nisena nasil-e Ram-e crazy person like danced-3 Ram-NOM Closest meaning: ‘He danced like a crazy person, Ram.’

Forward/Backward Control: The facts

b.

79

xui thakil Ram sleep kept Ram.ABS Closest meaning: ‘He fell asleep, Ram.’

2.2. Backward Control We saw in Chapter 2 that grammaticality judgments of Backward Adjunct Control in Assamese depend on the Case licensed by the CNP predicate. If the CNP predicate licenses Inherent Case, Backward Control is judged acceptable, (16) and (17), although speakers seem to prefer Forward or Copy Control. If the CNP subject is Structural Case-marked, Backward Control is judged as mostly unacceptable, although some speakers consider such examples simply degraded, (18). See Section 4 for a possible explanation. (16)

CNP subject: Genitive a. [Upanita-ri gɦɒ r-ot amoni lag-i] [Upanita-GEN house-LOC boredom feel-CNP] party gɔ l Δi/*k Δ.ABS party went ‘Having felt bored at home, Upanita went to a party.’ b.

[Prɒ xad-ɒ ri lobɦ lag-i] Δi/*k [Proxad-GEN greed feel-CNP] Δ.NOM cake-to khal-e cake-CL ate-3 ‘Proxad got greedy and ate the cake.’

c.

[baccha-to-ri andɦ ar-ot bɦɒ e lag-i] [child-CL-GEN dark-LOC fear feel-CNP] light-to zolal-e Δi/*k Δ.NOM light-CL turned on-3 ‘Having felt scared in the dark, the child turned on the light.’

d.

[Sarita-ri thanda lag-i] [Sarita-GEN cold feel-CNP] jacket pindɦ il-e jacket wore-3 ‘Having felt cold, Sarita put on a jacket.’

Δi/*k Δ.NOM

80

Forward/Backward Adjunct Control: The analysis

e.

(17)

Δi/*k [Ram-ɒ ri phurti lag-i] Δ.NOM [Ram-GEN exhilaration feel-CNP] pagolor nisena nasil-e crazy person like danced-3 ‘Having felt very happy, Ram danced like a crazy person.’

CNP subject: Experiential nominative a. Δi/*k [Ram-ei xadu kɒ tha eta-t Δ.GEN [Ram-EXP.NOM small matter one-LOC khɒ ŋ kɔ r-i] bea lagil anger did-CNP] bad felt ‘Having got angry for a silly reason, Ram felt bad.’ b.

[Sarita-ei boyfriend-ɒ r lɒ gɒ t [Sarita-EXP.NOM boyfriend-GEN with asorit lagil amoni pa-i] Δi/*k boredom happen-CNP] Δ.GEN surprised felt ‘Having got bored with her boyfriend, Sarita felt surprised.’

c.

[Sarita-ei eman sinta kɔ r-i] [Sarita-EXP.NOM a lot worry did-CNP] Δi/*k ga bea ɦɔ l Δ.GEN body bad became ‘Having worried so much, Sarita felt sick.’

d.

porikh-ɒ r kɒ tha sinta [Sarita-ei [Sarita-EXP.NOM exam-GEN matter worry kɔ r-i] Δi/*k bea lagil happen-CNP] Δ.GEN bad felt ‘Having got so worried about the exam, Sarita felt bad.’

e.

[manuɦ -to-ei andɦ ar-ot bɦɒ e kha-i] [man-CL-EXP.NOM dark-LOC fear feel-CNP] Δi/*k laz lagil Δ.GEN shy felt ‘Having got scared in the dark, the man felt embarrassed.’

Forward/Backward Control: The facts

(18)

CNP subject: Nominative a. *Δ [Ram-e Sarita-k Δ.GEN [Ram-NOM Sarita-ACC loga-i] bea lagil make feel-CNP] bad felt ‘Having made Sarita sad, Ram felt bad.’

81

dukh sad

b.

*[satro-zɒ n-e porikha pass kɔ r-i] [student-CL-NOM exam pass do-CNP Δ gorob lagil Δ.GEN pride felt ‘Having passed the exam, the student felt proud.’

c.

*Δ [Ram-e porikha-t fail Δ.GEN [Ram-NOM exam-LOC fail khɒ ŋ uthil anger raised ‘Having failed the exam, Ram got angry.’

d.

*[employee-to-e gutei din okole kam [employee-CL-NOM all day alone work kɔ r-i] Δ amoni lagil do-CNP] Δ.GEN boredom felt ‘Having worked all day all alone, the employee felt bored.’

e.

*[suali-zɒ ni-e rodo-t dɔ ur-i] [girl-CL-NOM sun-LOC run-CNP] Δ piaɦ lagil Δ.GEN thirst felt ‘Having run in the sun, the girl felt thirsty.’

kɔ r-i] do-CNP]

Again, this phenomenon is independent of whether the CNP subject and the matrix subject are Case-marked alike or differently. Sentence (19) must be considered degraded to unacceptable under the proposed parsing. Of course, when presented to native speakers as a string of words, it is parsed as a Forward Control structure. (19)

*Δ [Ram-e lottery jik-i] notun gɦɒ r kinil-e Δ.NOM [Ram-NOM lottery win-CNP] new house bought-3 ‘Having won the lottery, Ram bought a new house.’

82

Forward/Backward Adjunct Control: The analysis

Observe the sentences in (20), however. Sentence (20a) involves extraction of a CNP time expression to a sentence-initial position. It is directly ruled out by native speakers as unacceptable. To them, ‘in January’ and ‘in March’ belong to the same event of the matrix clause, and thus the sentence is semantically awkward. The sentence may be processed in two ways; see (20b) and (20c). We know that the structure in (20b) is not allowed because it involves extraction out of an island. But (20c) is also ruled out because it is an instance of Backward Control with a nominative subject in the CNP clause. This proves that Backward Control is not allowed in Assamese. (20)

a.

*January-t January-in March-ot March-in ‘Ram won the in March.’

Ram-e lottery jik-i Ram-NOM lottery win-CNP notun gɦɒ r kinil-e new house bought-3 lottery in January and bought a new house

b.

*January-t January-in jik-i] win-CNP] ‘Ram won the in March.’

Ram-e [Δ Ram-NOM [Δ.NOM March-ot notun gɦɒ r March-in new house lottery and bought a new house

lottery lottery kinil-e bought-3 in January

c.

*Δ Δ.NOM jik-i] win-CNP] ‘Ram won the in March.’

[January-t Ram-e [January-in Ram-NOM March-ot notun gɦɒ r March-in new house lottery in January and bought a

lottery lottery kinil-e bought-3 new house

This section presented evidence that Forward and Backward Control in Assamese are licensed independently from the Case similarities or differences between the CNP and matrix subjects. For the sake of clarity, most of the Adjunct Control examples used in the following sections contain two differently Case-marked subjects. Before we proceed to the analysis, Section 3 shows that the structures under examination are cases of Obligatory Control.

Assamese Adjunct Control as Obligatory Control

83

3. Assamese Adjunct Control as Obligatory Control Assamese Adjunct Control meets the criteria of Obligatory Control. As (21)–(24) illustrate, disjoint subjects are not allowed. The CNP subject has to be coreferential with the matrix subject. It cannot be coreferential with any other NP, such as the possessor of the matrix subject or a nonlocal NP. Also, it cannot take a split antecedent; that is, it cannot be coreferential with the matrix subject plus another NP in the sentence (e.g., Williams 1980; Hornstein 1999; Jackendoff and Culicover 2003; Polinsky and Potsdam 2004). (21)

[Ram-ei [Δi/*k khɒ ŋ uthi] [Ram-NOM [Δ.GEN anger raise-CNP] mor gɦɒ r-to bɦ aŋil-e] my house-CL destroyed-3] ‘Having got angry, Ram destroyed my house.’

(22)

[Δi/*k kukur-to [boss-to-ri [boss-CL-GEN [Δ.NOM dog-CL dukh lagil] sad felt] ‘Having lost his dog, the boss felt sad.’

ɦ eru-i]

lose-CNP]

(23)

[boss-to-ei [Δi/*k lottery jik-i] notun [boss-CL-NOM [Δ.NOM lottery win-CNP] new gɦɒ r kinil-e] house bought-3] ‘Having won the lottery, the boss bought a new house.’

(24)

[Ram-ɒ ri [Δi/*k e-ta bɦ al [Ram-GEN [Δ.GEN one-CL good khel-i] bɦ al lagil] play-CNP] good felt] ‘Having got a nice idea, Ram felt good.’

buddɦ i idea

As an illustration, observe the Forward Control structure in (25). In this case, the reference for the CNP subject coincides with the possessor of the matrix subject; the sentence is ungrammatical under the designated reading. Note that the sentence would be grammatical under the reading that the wife won the lottery.

84 (25)

Forward/Backward Adjunct Control: The analysis

*[tari gɦ oiniyak-ɒ r [Δi lottery jik-i] [his wife-GEN [Δ.NOM lottery win-CNP] phurti lagil] exhilaration felt] ‘He won the lottery, and his wife felt very happy.’

Similarly, in (26) the reference for the CNP subject can only coincide with the reference for the matrix subject ‘Ram’. The CNP subject cannot be coreferential with the nonlocal NP ‘Proxad’. Further, the CNP subject cannot take a split antecedent, which in this case would be ‘Ram and Proxad’. (26)

[Prɒ xad-ek kol-e [ze Ram-ei [Δi/*k/*i+k [Proxad-NOM said-3 [that Ram-NOM [Δ.GEN xɒ mɒ i na-thak-i] bɦ at na-khal-e]] time NEG-keep-CNP] rice NEG-ate-3]] ‘Proxad said that Ram, having no time, didn’t eat rice.’ *‘Proxad said that Proxad having no time, Ram didn’t eat rice.’ *‘Proxad said that Ram and Proxad having no time, Ram didn’t eat rice.’

The same observation applies to Backward Control. If the CNP subject fails to fully determine the identity of the matrix subject, the result is ungrammaticality. For example, (27) and (28) are acceptable only if the pronounced CNP subject and the implied matrix subject are coreferential. (27)

[Δ [tar gɦ oiniyak-ɒ r e-ta bɦ al [Δ.GEN [his wife-GEN one-CL good khel-i] bɦ al lagil] play-CNP] good felt] ‘Having got a nice idea, his wife felt good.’ *‘His wife having got a good idea, he felt good.’

buddɦ i idea

(28)

[Prɒ xad-e kol-e [ze Δ [Ram-ɒ r [Proxad-NOM said-3 [that Δ.NOM [Ram-GEN xɒ mɒ i na-thak-i] bɦ at na-khal-e]] time NEG-keep-CNP] rice NEG-ate-3]] ‘Proxad said that Ram, having no time, didn’t eat rice.’ *‘Proxad said that Ram having no time, Proxad didn’t eat rice.’ *‘Proxad said that Ram having no time, Ram and Proxad didn’t eat rice.’

Assamese Adjunct Control as sideward movement

85

The following section delineates the derivational history of Forward and Backward Adjunct Control. 4. Assamese Adjunct Control as sideward movement The standard assumption is that adjuncts are islands to movement. More specifically, movement out of a phrasal structure is not possible if the phrasal structure has already undergone adjunction. Prior to adjunction, however, movement is still allowed. One such case of movement occurs in parasitic gap constructions, which Nunes (1995, 2004) analyzes as sideward movement. Sideward movement is an interarboreal operation that allows an element to undergo copy-plus-merge between two unconnected syntactic objects. Hornstein (1999, 2003) follows Nunes and considers Adjunct Control structures as instances of sideward movement. Under the Copy Theory of Movement as proposed by Chomsky (1995), all movement takes place between two positions that are in a c-command relationship. A constituent moves intra-arboreally up a phrasal structure and copy-plus-merges into a c-commanding position. Subsequently, the two copies form a chain. Nunes reformulates the Copy Theory of Movement as the Copy-plusMerge Theory of Movement. He holds that movement is made up of four independent operations: Copy, Merge, Form Chain, and Chain Reduction. The two operations Copy and Merge are in principle similar to Chomsky’s, except that they do not have to take place intra-arboreally. Accordingly, Form Chain does not follow naturally from them. Form Chain is an independent operation whose essence is captured in (29). Note that (29) is a simplified version of Nunes’s (2004: 91) original formulation. See Chapter 1 for more details. (29)

Form Chain Two constituents X and Y form a chain iff a. X and Y are nondistinct copies of the same token (that is, they are identical copies related through movement); b. X c-commands Y.

Now that copy and merge are not contingent on c-command, interarboreal – or sideward – movement has become possible. For example, X in (30) may copy out of the syntactic object L and merge in the unconnected syntactic object M, as (30a) illustrates. Subsequently, L and M undergo

86

Forward/Backward Adjunct Control: The analysis

merge in (30b). Note that if L is an adjunct, it becomes an island after – not before – merging with M. (30)

a. b.

COPY [L X…] [M [L X…] [M X […]]]

X

MERGE

[M X […]]

Copy, Merge, and Form Chain take place in the syntax – that is, before a structure is spelled out and delivered to the phonological component. Chain Reduction, on the other hand, takes place at PF, and it is dependent on Form Chain. According to Nunes, if two copies form a chain, one of them has to be deleted. Conversely, a copy may not undergo Chain Reduction unless it is part of a chain. Both operations, Form Chain and Chain Reduction, take place for the purpose of linearization. They satisfy the Linear Correspondence Axiom in (31), which dictates that an element cannot asymmetrically c-command and be asymmetrically c-commanded by the same element in a structure. At the same time, an element cannot follow and precede itself, as this induces a violation of irreflexivity. Both asymmetry and irreflexivity are defined in (32) and (33) respectively (Nunes 2004: 24). To satisfy the Linear Correspondence Axiom, Chain Reduction applies at PF. This PF operation is formulated as in (34). (31)

(32) (33) (34)

The Linear Correspondence Axiom Let X, Y be nonterminals and x, y terminals such that X dominates x and Y dominates y. Then if X asymmetrically c-commands Y, x precedes y. (Kayne 1994: 33) Asymmetry If x precedes y, y necessarily does not precede x. Irreflexivity If x precedes y, then x and y are distinct copies. Chain Reduction Delete the minimal number of constituents of a nontrivial chain CH that suffices for CH to be mapped into a linear order in accordance with the L[inear] C[orrespondence] A[xiom]. (Nunes 2004: 27, (44))

To illustrate, sentence (35) contains two nondistinct copies of Tim in a c-command relationship; thus, the two copies form a chain. Pronouncing both copies violates the Linear Correspondence Axiom. As the arrows show, the verb called ends up c-commanding and being c-commanded by

Assamese Adjunct Control as sideward movement

87

the same element. This is a violation of asymmetry as stated in (32). At the same time, the two copies of Tim being nondistinct, Tim ends up preceding and following itself, which is a violation of irreflexivity as stated in (33). In order for the structure to be linearized in accordance with the Linear Correspondence Axiom, one of the copies has to be deleted. Chain Reduction applies and marks one of the copies for deletion. The lower copy undergoes deletion because it has fewer checked features. c-commanded

(35)

c-commanding

Tim was called Tim by Sue.

In the following sections, I adopt Nunes’s system in order to account for Adjunct Control in Assamese. I start with Forward Control. 4.1. Forward Control This section analyzes Forward Control structures in Assamese as instances of sideward movement. Section 4.1.1 deals with Forward Control structures in which the CNP clause is realized sentence-internally, (36). Section 4.1.2 provides an analysis of Forward Control structures in which the CNP clause is realized sentence-initially, (37). (36)

Ram-e [Ram-ɒ r xɒ mɒ i na-thak-i] Ram-NOM [Ram-GEN time NEG-keep-CNP] bɦ at na-khal-e rice NEG-ate-3 ‘Having no time, Ram didn’t eat rice.’

(37)

[Ram-ɒ r xɒ mɒ i na-thak-i] [Ram-GEN time NEG-keep-CNP] bɦ at na-khal-e rice NEG-ate-3 ‘Having no time, Ram didn’t eat rice.’

Ram-e Ram-NOM

4.1.1. Forward Control as sideward movement Observe sentence (38). Following Hornstein (1999, 2003) and Nunes (1995, 2001, 2004), I suggest that the sentence has the derivation in (39). In

88

Forward/Backward Adjunct Control: The analysis

(39a), the CNP clause and the matrix clause form independently, and Ram copies out of the CNP clause. In (39b), Ram merges in the matrix clause. The copy-plus-merge operation between the two unconnected syntactic objects, the CNP and matrix clauses, is an instance of sideward movement.1 Then the CNP clause adjoins to the matrix vP, as shown in (39c). Upon adjunction, the CNP clause becomes an island. In (39d), the matrix subject Ram moves from Spec,vP to Spec,IP to check the EPP feature. As the dotted arrows in (39e) show, the copy of Ram in Spec,IP c-commands both the copy in the CNP clause and the copy in Spec,vP, forming a chain with each – thus, Form Chain. Step (39f) takes place at PF; this is when Chain Reduction applies, and the lower copy in each chain is deleted in order for the structure to be linearized in accordance with the Linear Correspondence Axiom. (38)

Ram-e [Ram-e lottery jik-i] Ram-NOM [Ram-NOM lottery win-CNP] notun gɦɒ r kinil-e new house bought-3 ‘Having won the lottery, Ram bought a new house.’

(39)

a.

i.

[CNPP [NP Ram-e] lottery jik-i] [NP Ram] [CNPP [NP Ram-NOM] lottery win-CNP]

ii.

[Matrix vP notun [Matrix vP new

gɦɒ r kinil-e] house bought-3]

b.

[Matrix vP [NP Ram-e] notun gɦɒ r kinil-e]

c.

[Matrix IP [vP [CNPP [NP Ram-e] lottery jik-i] [vP [NP Ram-e] notun gɦɒ r kinil-e]]]

d.

[Matrix IP [NP Ram-e] [vP [CNPP [NP Ram-e] lottery jik-i] [vP [NP Ram-e] notun gɦɒ r kinil-e]]]

Assamese Adjunct Control as sideward movement

e.

CP 3 IP C qp SUBJ I' Ram-e qp vP I qp CNPP vP 3 3 SUBJ 6 SUBJ 6 Ram-e lottery jiki Ram-e notun gɦɒr kinil-e

f.

At PF: [Matrix IP [NP Ram-e] [vP [CNP [NP Ram-e] lottery jik-i] [vP [NP Ram-e] notun gɦɒ r kinil-e]]]

89

The following section deals with structures that involve a sentenceinitial CNP clause. 4.1.2. Forward Control as sideward plus remnant movement Forward Control may also obtain in constructions where the CNP clause is sentence-initial, such as (40a). As (40b) shows, the CNP clause in such constructions is pronounced at CP of the matrix clause. (40)

a.

b.

[Ram-ɒ r phurti lag-i] [Ram-GEN exhilaration feel-CNP] Ram-e nasil-e Ram-NOM danced-3 ‘Having felt so happy, Ram danced.’ CP qp

CNPP 3 SUBJ 6 Ram-ɒr phurti lag-i

CP 3 IP C 3 SUBJ 6 Ram-e nasil-e

90

Forward/Backward Adjunct Control: The analysis

Let us assume that the CNP clause in (40) is not only pronounced at CP of the matrix clause, but also base-generated there. This means that at no point in the derivation can the CNP and matrix subjects enter a c-command relationship, and thus the two nondistinct copies cannot form a chain. Accordingly, Chain Reduction, which is dependent on Form Chain, must fail to apply, and deletion must not take place, contrary to fact. An alternative approach is to assume that the CNP clause is basegenerated at vP of the matrix clause before it moves to the position where it is pronounced. In other words, (40a) has the structure in (41). (41)

CP qp

CNPP2 3 SUBJ 6 Ram-ɒr phurti lag-i

CP 3 IP C qp SUBJ I' Ram-e qp vP I qp CNPP1 vP 3 3 SUBJ 6 SUBJ 6 Ram-ɒr phurti lag-i Ram-e nasil-e

The copy of the subject in Spec,IP of the matrix clause c-commands both the copy in Spec,vP and the copy in the lower CNP clause (CNPP1). It forms a chain with each of them. At PF, Chain Reduction applies, and the lower copy in each chain is deleted. Further, the two copies of the CNP clause, CNPP2 and CNPP1, also form a chain; at PF, the lower copy is deleted. The movement of the CNP clause in (41) is commonly referred to as remnant movement. It involves movement of a constituent out of which extraction has taken place (Müller 2000). Assuming that control is movement, the CNP clause in (41) moves to the matrix CP after the CNP subject has moved to the matrix clause. Now the question is: How does the subject in CNPP2 get deleted? To account for a similar case of remnant movement, Nunes (2004: 50–55) adopts a more elaborate definition of chain and chain links. Following Chomsky (1995: 300), he holds that “the individual links of a chain must

Assamese Adjunct Control as sideward movement

91

… be identified not only in terms of their content, but also in terms of their local structural configuration.” To illustrate, consider the chain {Ram-e, Ram-ɒr} in (41). It is made up of the copy of the subject in Spec,IP of the matrix clause and the copy of the subject in the CNP clause. Nunes holds that the two copies must be identified, not only in terms of their content as ‘Ram’, but also in terms of their local structural configuration. That is, the chain {Ram-e, Ram-ɒr} must be identified as in (42), where one link is identified as the sister of the matrix I' and the other link as the sister of CNP' of the CNP clause. At PF, Chain Reduction instructs the phonological component to delete the occurrence of Ram-ɒ r that has the structural configuration (Ram-ɒ r, [CNP' phurti lag-i]). Two such copies exist in (41), one in CNPP1 and one in CNPP2. As Nunes (2004: 54) maintains, “assuming that the phonological component blindly scans the structure to carry out the deletion instructed by Chain Reduction,” it ends up deleting the two copies of (Ram-ɒ r, [CNP' phurti lag-i]), as (43) shows. (42)

{(Ram-e, [I' …]), (Ram-ɒ r, [CNP' phurti lag-i])}

(43)

[Ram-ɒ r phurti lag-i] exhilaration feel-CNP] [Ram-GEN [Ram-ɒ r phurti lag-i] [Ram-GEN exhilaration feel-CNP] ‘Having felt so happy, Ram danced.’

Ram-e Ram-NOM nasil-e danced-3

The analysis thus far accounts for one side of the coin: Forward Control. We are left with Backward Control, which is the topic of the following section. 4.2. Backward Control in Assamese As noted earlier, the acceptability of Backward Control in Assamese depends on the Case licensed by the CNP predicate. If the CNP subject is Inherent Case-marked genitive, (44), or experiential nominative, (45), Backward Control is generally considered acceptable.

92 (44)

Forward/Backward Adjunct Control: The analysis

Genitive CNP subject a. Ram-e [Ram-ɒ r dukh [Ram-GEN sad Ram-NOM bɦ at na-khal-e rice NEG-ate-3 ‘Having felt sad, Ram didn’t eat rice.’ b.

(45)

Ram [Ram-ɒ r bɦ agɔ r Ram.ABS [Ram-GEN exhaustion xui thakil sleep kept ‘Having felt exhausted, Ram fell asleep.’

Experiential-nominative CNP subject a. ?Ram-ɒ r [Ram-e Ram-GEN [Ram-EXP.NOM kɔ r-i] bɦ ok lagil do-CNP] hunger felt ‘Having celebrated, Ram felt hungry.’ b.

log-i] feel-CNP]

lag-i] feel-CNP]

phurti exhilaration

?Ram-ɒ r [Ram-e khɒ ŋ kɔ r-i] Ram-GEN [Ram-EXP.NOM anger did-CNP] kosto hoise trouble was ‘Having got angry (expressed his anger), Ram was in trouble.’

When the CNP subject is Structural Case-marked as in (46), the structures are generally found unacceptable. (46)

Nominative CNP subject a. *Ram-ɒ r [Ram-e kukur-to Ram-GEN [Ram-NOM dog-CL ɦ eru-i] dukh lagil lose-CNP] sad felt ‘Having lost his dog, Ram felt sad.’

Assamese Adjunct Control as sideward movement

b.

93

*Ram-ɒ r [Ram-e lottery jik-i] Ram-GEN [Ram-NOM lottery win-CNP] phurti lagil exhilaration felt ‘Having won the lottery, Ram felt very happy.’

Regardless of the Case marking of the CNP subject, when presented with Backward Control constructions similar to those in (44)–(46), native speakers’ first reaction is that the subject in the matrix clause is missing. To them, the structures sound better if they read like (47a–f), which are instances of Copy Control. Of course, another option is to realize them as Forward Control structures. (47)

a.

[Ram-ɒ r dukh log-i] [Ram-GEN sad feel-CNP] xi/Ram-e bɦ at na-khal-e he.NOM/Ram-NOM rice NEG-ate-3 ‘Having felt sad, Ram didn’t eat rice.’

b.

[Ram-ɒ r bɦ agɔ r lag-i] [Ram-GEN exhaustion feel-CNP] xi/Ram xui thakil he.ABS/Ram.ABS sleep kept ‘Having felt exhausted, Ram fell asleep.’

c.

[Ram-e phurti [Ram-EXP.NOM exhilaration bɦ ok tar/Ram-ɒ r he.GEN/Ram-GEN hunger ‘Having celebrated, Ram felt hungry.’

d.

[Ram-e khɒ ŋ kɔ r-i] [Ram-EXP.NOM anger did-CNP] tar/Ram-ɒ r kosto hoise he.GEN/Ram-GEN trouble was ‘Having got angry (expressed his anger), Ram was in trouble.’

kɔ r-i] do-CNP] lagil felt

94

Forward/Backward Adjunct Control: The analysis

e.

f.

✓/*[Ram-e kukur-to [Ram-NOM dog-CL dukh lagil tar/Ram-ɒ r he.GEN/Ram-GEN sad felt ‘Having lost his dog, Ram felt sad.’

ɦ eru-i]

lose-CNP]

✓/*[Ram-e lottery jik-i] [Ram-NOM lottery win-CNP] tar/Ram-ɒ r phurti lagil he.GEN/Ram-GEN exhilaration felt ‘Having won the lottery, Ram felt very happy.’

Notice that not all speakers accept (47e–f). The speakers who find the Backward Control constructions with the nominative CNP subjects in (46) degraded find their Copy Control counterparts (47e–f) acceptable. Those who find (46a–b) unacceptable also rule out (47e–f). One way to approach the puzzle of Backward Control in Assamese is to examine the Case characteristics of the CNP subject. Let us assume that every argument enters the computation with an uninterpretable Structural Case feature that needs to be checked, even if the argument takes on Inherent Case. Let us also assume that Assamese CNP clauses do not check Structural Case. This means that when an Assamese Adjunct Control structure reaches PF, the CNP subject will still have an uninterpretable Structural Case feature that needs to be checked. Take sentence (48), for example. The same mechanism involved in Forward Control and the pronunciation of the matrix subject is involved in Backward Control and the pronunciation of the CNP subject. That is, the derivational history of (48) is almost identical to that of its Forward Control counterpart. More specifically, sentence (48) has the derivational history delineated in (49). What makes this derivation different from that of a Forward Control structure is the outcome of the PF operation Chain Reduction. In Forward Control structures, Chain Reduction deletes the CNP copy of the subject. In (49), however, Chain Reduction deletes the matrix copy of the subject, leading to Backward Control, as (49f) illustrates. (48)

Ram-e [Ram-ɒ r khub bɦ ok Ram-NOM [Ram-GEN very hunger posa bɦ at khal-e stale rice ate-3 ‘Having felt very hungry, Ram ate stale rice.’

lag-i] felt-CNP]

Assamese Adjunct Control as sideward movement

(49)

a.

i.

[CNP [NP Ram-ɒ r] bɦ ok lag-i] [CNP [NP Ram-GEN] hunger felt-CNP]

ii.

[Matrix vP posa [Matrix vP stale

bɦ at rice

95

[NP Ram]

khal-e] ate-3]

b.

[Matrix vP [NP Ram-e] posa khal-e]

c.

[Matrix IP [vP [CNP [NP Ram-ɒ r] bɦ ok lag-i] [vP [NP Ram-e] posa bɦ at khal-e]]]

d.

[Matrix IP [NP Ram-e] [vP [CNP [NP Ram-ɒ r] bɦ ok lag-i] [vP [NP Ram-e] posa bɦ at khal-e]]]

e.

CP 3 IP C qp SUBJ I' Ram-e qp vP I qp CNPP vP 3 3 SUBJ 6 SUBJ 6 Ram-ɒr bɦok lag-i Ram-e posa bɦat khal-e

f.

At PF: [Matrix IP [NP Ram-e] [vP [CNP [NP Ram-ɒ r] bɦ ok lag-i] [vP [NP Ram-e] posa bɦ at khal-e]]]

Of course, the question is: Why is (49f) judged less acceptable than its Forward Control counterparts? And why are Backward Control structures with a nominative/absolutive CNP subject considered unacceptable? The reason is that the CNP subjects in these structures have unchecked Structural Case features. This puts them at a disadvantage. When Chain Reduction applies, the operation prefers to delete the CNP subjects, (49f'). This is why the matrix copy is normally the one that escapes deletion.

96 (49)

Forward/Backward Adjunct Control: The analysis

f'.

At PF: [Matrix IP [NP Ram-e] [vP [CNP [NP Ram-ɒ r] bɦ ok lag-i] [vP [NP Ram-e] posa bɦ at khal-e]]]

What about the speakers who find the Backward Control structures in (46) marginal but not totally unacceptable? These structures involve Structural Case-marked CNP subjects. Two explanations – or, more likely, stipulations – are possible. It might be speculated that nominative Case on CNP subjects is a default Case that is realized in the absence of a licensing head. Although a default Case-marked subject makes Backward Control tolerable, sentences (46a–b) are still considered less than perfect because the matrix subject, whose Case is licensed by a functional head, has an advantage over the default Case-marked CNP subject. Thus, Chain Reduction favors the former over the latter. Another possibility is that the phenomenon is a change in progress and that Assamese CNP clauses may get to a point where they license Structural Case-marked subjects like other South Asian languages, for example, Telugu (see Haddad 2009a). Before we go on to the next section, it is worth noting that Subbarao (2004) presents data that are in line with the data in this section. His conclusion, however, is different. According to Subbarao, Assamese allows Backward Control only if the matrix subject is not Case-marked genitive. He provides the examples in (50)–(51) (Subbarao 2004: 20–22, (11), (13), (18), and (19)). In (50), the matrix subject is absolutive. Both Forward Control (50a) and Backward Control (50b) are allowed. In (51), however, the matrix subject is genitive. Only Forward Control is allowed, (51a). Backward Control is unacceptable, (51b). (50)

Forward Control [CP [IP Xita [vP [CNP Xita-r xahɒ x [vP [CNP Xita-GEN courage [CP [IP Xita.ABS thak-i-u] [vP Xita pɒ lay gɔl]]]] keep-CNP-also] [vP Xita.ABS ran away]]]] ‘Xita ran away although she had a lot of courage.’ b.

Backward Control [CP [IP Xita [vP [CNP Xita-r xahɒ x [CP [IP Xita.ABS [vP [CNP Xita-GEN courage thak-i-u] [vP Xita pɒ lay gɔ l]]]] away]]]] keep-CNP-also] [vP Xita.ABS ran ‘Xita ran away although she had a lot of courage.’

Assamese Adjunct Control as sideward movement

(51)

a.

b.

97

Forward Control [CP [IP Ram-ɒ r [vP [CNP Ram [vP [CNP Ram.ABS [CP [IP Ram-GEN kɒ tha-to xun-i] [vP Ram-ɒ r khɒ ŋ news-CL heard-CNP] [vP Ram-GEN anger ‘Having heard the news, Ram got angry.’

ei this uthil]]]] raised]]]]

Backward Control *[CP [IP Ram-ɒ r [vP [CNP Ram [CP [IP Ram-GEN [vP [CNP Ram.ABS kɒ tha-to xun-i] [vP Ram-ɒ r khɒ ŋ news-CL heard-CNP] [vP Ram-GEN anger ‘Having heard the news, Ram got angry.’

ei this uthil]]]] raised]]]]

On the basis of these examples, Subbarao suggests that “when the matrix predicate requires a [genitive] subject in a Forward Control structure the corresponding Backward Control structure with a nominative subject is not permitted” (2004: 21–22). If the explanation presented in this section is on the right track, then the Backward Control structure (51b) is unacceptable because of the type of the CNP predicate rather than the Case marking of the matrix subject. As the sentences in (52) show, even if the matrix predicate licenses a genitive subject, Backward Control constructions are somehow tolerated if the CNP clause has an experiential predicate. In addition, sentence (53) shows that Backward Control may be unacceptable even if the matrix subject is nominative Case-marked. The reason why (53) is unacceptable – at least to some speakers – is that the CNP predicate is a nonexperiential predicate. (52)

a.

?Ram-ɒ r [Ram-e [Ram-EXP.NOM Ram-GEN kɔ r-i] bɦ ok lagil do-CNP] hunger felt ‘Having celebrated, Ram felt hungry.’

b.

?Ram-ɒ r [Ram-e khɒ ŋ kɔ r-i] [Ram-EXP.NOM anger did-CNP] Ram-GEN kosto hoise trouble was ‘Having got angry (expressed his anger), Ram was in trouble.’

phurti exhilaration

98 (53)

Forward/Backward Adjunct Control: The analysis

*Ram-e [January-t Ram-e lottery jik-i] Ram-NOM [January-in Ram-e lottery win-CNP] March-ot notun gɦɒ r kinil-e March-in new house bought-3 ‘Ram won the lottery in January and bought a new house in March.’

It is interesting to note that the “interchangeability” between Forward and Backward Control that is tolerated in Assamese is not unique. It is also attested in Telugu Adjunct Control (Haddad 2007, 2009a) and Malagasy Object Control (Potsdam 2006, 2009). Potsdam offers evidence from Malagasy that shows an alternation between Forward and Backward Control within the same structure, as exemplified in (54) (Potsdam’s (3a–b)). Potsdam adopts the movement approach to control in order to analyze the relevant structures. The embedded subject copy-plus-merges into the matrix object position. Both copies have all their features checked. At PF, Linearization detects the two copies as nondistinct elements in a c-command relationship. At PF, Chain Reduction applies. Since both copies have all their features checked, either one can be deleted. In the case of Forward Control, the copy in the matrix clause is pronounced, (54a). In the case of Backward Control, the embedded copy is pronounced, (54b). (54)

Malagasy a. naneren’i Mery ny zaza [hofafana forced Mary the child [sweep ny zaza ny trano the house the child ‘Mary forced the child to sweep the house.’ b.

naneren’i Mery ny zaza [hofafan’ forced Mary the child [sweep ny zaza ny trano the child the house ‘Mary forced the child to sweep the house.’

This section has presented an analysis of Assamese Adjunct Control as sideward movement. The section has also concluded that the CNP subject in Assamese may take on Inherent Case – and maybe default Case – but not Structural Case, which is why Backward Control is not favored.

Multiple Case checking and Copy Control

99

Knowing that the subject also checks Case in the matrix clause, we are now face to face with a theoretical problem of multiple Case checking. The theoretical issues are built on empirical grounds. The Movement Theory of Control claims that control is just like raising in that they both are derived via movement. The moving element in raising structures does not undergo multiple Case checking. If control is derived in the same manner, then the moving element in control structures must not undergo multiple Case checking either (Landau 2003). Sections 5 and 6 address these problems and show that they are not necessarily a challenge to the approach adopted here. 5. Multiple Case checking and Copy Control Case Theory and the Case Filter as delineated in Chomsky 1981 and Chomsky and Lasnik 1995 require that every argument be Case-marked in order to be visible. Visibility can be understood as a PF requirement, as the original formulation of the Case Filter in (55a) indicates; if an NP is not Case-marked, it cannot be phonologically realized. It can also be understood as an LF requirement, as the later formulation of the Case Filter in (55b) shows; at LF, a link in an argument chain must have Case in order for the chain to be visible for a theta-role. The Case Filter can be satisfied by either Structural or Inherent Case. Once an argument is Case-marked, however, it freezes for all further A-movement (Chomsky and Lasnik 1995: 111–119; Chomsky 2000: 127). (55)

Case Filter a. An NP must be Case-marked in order to be pronounced. (Chomsky 1981: 49; Vergnaud 1982) b. An argument chain must be Case-marked to be visible for theta-role assignment. (Chomsky and Lasnik 1995: 46, 119, following Joseph Aoun)

Evidence from Backward Control (and Copy Control) indicates that the CNP subject in Adjunct Control structures is Case-marked prior to sideward movement, which makes the movement approach to control suspect from a traditional Case Theory perspective. The reason is that the movement approach seems to suggest that multiple Case checking is possible, something that Case Theory does not allow. Fortunately, there is strong

100

Forward/Backward Adjunct Control: The analysis

evidence that multiple Case checking is a fact about natural languages, rendering the idea that an NP can only check Case once a stipulation. The literature is replete with evidence that multiple Case checking is possible. Belletti (1988), Mohanan (1994), Sigurðsson (2004), Yoon (2004), and Woolford (2006), among others, provide evidence from several languages (e.g., Hindi, Finnish, Icelandic, Korean) to argue that an Inherent Case-marked NP may also check Structural Case. In some languages, both Case markers are phonologically realized. For example, Yoon (2004: 268, (12a)) shows that Korean subject NPs check nominative Case on top of the dative Case marker and that the two Case markers are pronounced, (56). Evans (2005) offers similar examples from Kayardild, an Australian language. (56)

Korean Cheli-eykey-ka ton-i Cheli-DAT-NOM money-NOM ‘It is Cheli who has a lot of money.’

manh-ta a lot-DECLARATIVE

The cumulative realization of Case in Korean is the marked situation, however. Although an Inherent Case-marked argument may also check Structural Case, often morphological restrictions in the language allow only one Case to be realized. The tendency is that Inherent Case takes precedence morphologically. Observe the Icelandic sentences in (57), for example. Sentence (57b) is the passive equivalent of (57a). In (57b), the genitive Case-marked NP sjúklinganna ‘the patients’ moves to the subject position, where it checks nominative Case on a par with við ‘we’ in (57a). Whereas the nominative Case marker is realized on við, only the genitive is pronounced on sjúklinganna (Bejar and Massam 1999: 68, (6), from Andrews 1990 as cited in Harley 1995). (57)

Icelandic a. Við vitjuðum we.NOM visited ‘We visited the patients.’ b.

Sjúklinganna var the patients.GEN was ‘The patients were visited.’

sjúklinganna the patients.GEN vitjað sjúklinganna visited the patients.GEN

Case in raising vs. control

101

The reason behind the realization of Inherent Case, Woolford (2006: 117, fn. 4) suggests, is that it is more marked, and that in some languages “faithfulness to the nonstructural Cases is more important than using the less marked Structural Cases.” Or, as Halle and Marantz (1993, in Bejar and Massam 1999: 77) put it, “the more highly specified case [i.e., Inherent Case] is realized.” Therefore, the idea that in Assamese an Inherent Case-marked CNP subject moves to the matrix clause, where it checks Structural Case, is not unheard of. One question remains: What about an Assamese CNP subject that checks Inherent Case in the matrix clause as well? Is multiple Inherent Case checking possible? Since Inherent Case is intertwined with theta-roles, the answer depends on the possibility of multiple theta-role checking. Research (Bošković 1997; Hornstein 1999, 2003; Manzini and Roussou 2000) suggests that multiple theta-role checking is possible. It follows that multiple Inherent Case checking is also possible (Boeckx and Hornstein 2006). 6. Case in raising vs. control One type of evidence used to argue against the movement approach to control comes from the difference in Case behavior between raising subject NPs and their control counterparts. This section delineates the problem as presented by Landau (2003), highlights its relevance to Assamese, and suggests a solution. 6.1. Landau’s analysis One proponent of the PRO Theory of Control is Landau (2000, 2003, 2004, 2006), who holds that control is different from raising and that the two constructions have different derivational histories. Landau argues that control structures consist of two distinct argument chains, one comprising PRO and the other the matrix subject. Raising structures, on the contrary, involve only one argument chain. To illustrate, the control sentence (58a) is assumed to have the structure in (58b). PRO is base-generated in the vP of the embedded CP, where it is assigned a theta-role (unlike Hornstein, Landau – and PRO Theory in general – does not consider theta-roles to be features). PRO then moves to Spec,IP, where it checks Case and the EPP feature of the embedded I0. The

102

Forward/Backward Adjunct Control: The analysis

two copies of PRO form a chain. Tom is base-generated in vP of the matrix clause, where it is assigned a theta-role. It moves to Spec,IP, where it checks Case and the EPP feature of the matrix I0. The two copies of Tom form a chain. Details aside, the identity of PRO is determined by the identity of Tom through Agree. (58)

a. b.

Tom hopes to know the answer. [CP [IP TomiCase, EPP [vP Tomθ hopes [CP [IP PROi [vP PRO θ know the answer]]]]]]

Case,EPP

to

The raising sentence (59a), on the other hand, is assumed to have the structure in (59b). Tom starts out in vP of the embedded IP (according to PRO Theory, with the exception of San Martin 2004, only control structures have CP embedded clauses). Tom makes the trip to the matrix Spec,IP, passing through the subordinate Spec,IP. Notice that seems occupies a VP rather than a vP because it is unaccusative. At the end of the derivation, all the copies of Tom form a chain. (59)

a. b.

Tom seems to know the answer. [CP [IP Tom Case,EPP [VP seems [IP Tom EPP to [vP Tomθ know the answer]]]]]

Landau, building on work by Sigurðsson (1991), uses evidence from Icelandic to prove his point. Compare the control structure (60) (Landau 2003: 492, (40b), from Sigurðsson 1991) with the raising structure (61) (Landau 2003: 492, (41b), from O’Neil 1997, attributed to Höskuldur Thrainsson). Notice that the dative floating quantifier öllum ‘all’ in each sentence agrees with the unpronounced subject. It agrees with PRO in (60) and with a deleted copy or trace in (61). (60)

Icelandic Strákarnir vonast til [að the boys.NOM hope for [to lei ðast ekki öllum í to be bored not all.DAT in ‘The boys hope not to be all bored in school.’

PRO PRO.DAT skóla] school]

Case in raising vs. control

(61)

103

Icelandic Strákunum virðast [strákunum 2 the boys.DAT seem [the boys.DAT lei ðast ekki öllum í skóla] to be bored not all.DAT in school] ‘The boys seem not to be all bored in school.’

What is crucial for our purposes is the difference in the Case marking of the matrix subjects. The matrix subject in the control structure (60) is Casemarked nominative. This is different from the Case marking of the embedded subject, which is dative. The matrix subject of the raising structure (61), however, takes on the same Case as the embedded subject: dative. Landau maintains that if control is movement, just like raising, then Case in (60) should pattern the same as in (61). He uses this as an argument that control is different from raising. Only raising is derived by movement, whereby the embedded subject and the matrix subject form one A-chain, which is Case-marked once. Control is not derived by movement. PRO does exist, and PRO and the matrix subject form two distinct A-chains that are each Case-marked once. In this case, the PRO chain is dative, and the matrix subject is nominative. 6.2. Raising vs. control in Assamese Landau’s argument applies to Assamese as well. Observe the sentences in (62). In (62a), the subject is genitive. In (62b), it is nominative. When the sentences are used in raising constructions, the subject preserves the Case it has checked downstairs, as (63a–b) illustrate. The raising verb has no effect on the subject as far as Case is concerned. (62)

a.

Ram-ɒ r khɒ ŋ Ram-GEN anger ‘Ram got angry.’

b.

Ram-e khɒ ŋ Ram-NOM anger ‘Ram got angry.’

uthil raised kɔ ril-e did-3

104

Forward/Backward Adjunct Control: The analysis

(63)

a.

Ram-ɒ r khub xonkale Ram-GEN very fast uth-a zen lage get-GRND like feel ‘Ram seems to get angry easily.’

khɒ ŋ anger

b.

Ram-e khub xonkale Ram-NOM very fast zen lage like feel ‘Ram seems to get angry easily.’

khɒ ŋ anger

kɔ r-a do-GRND

Compare (62) and (63) with (64). Sentence (64a) has a dative subject. When used in a control structure like (64b), its subject takes on the Case associated with the matrix verb – in this instance, nominative. (64)

a.

Ram-ɒ r thanda Ram-GEN cold ‘Ram felt cold.’

b.

Ram-e thanda lag-a-bo Ram-NOM cold feel-GRND-FUT ni-bisar-e NEG-want-3 ‘Ram doesn’t want to feel cold.’

lagil felt

It seems that Landau’s argument applies beyond Icelandic, which makes it strong enough to make the movement approach to control questionable. A counterargument is available, however, as the following section shows. 6.3. Case in raising vs. control: The counterargument One counterargument has been proposed by Boeckx and Hornstein (2006). Their reply is summarized in Section 6.3.1. The argument falls short of accounting for multiple Structural Case checking, which, although it does not seem to be available in Assamese Adjunct Control, is readily available in control in other languages. Section 6.3.2 builds on Boeckx and Hornstein’s (2006) work, as well as on Bejar and Massam’s (1999), in an attempt to provide a more complete picture.

Case in raising vs. control

105

6.3.1. Boeckx and Hornstein’s analysis Boeckx and Hornstein (2006) reply to Landau by giving a movement account of the Icelandic control data. They observe that multiple Case checking in Icelandic control structures only occurs when the Case on either the embedded subject or the matrix subject or both is Inherent Case. Under the standard assumption that Inherent Case is directly associated with thetaroles and that an A-chain in a control configuration bears two theta-roles, it follows naturally that multiple Inherent Case assignment is possible. In other words, if the controller and the controllee, which are two copies of the same argument, bear two different theta-roles, there is no reason why these two copies should not bear two distinct Inherent Cases associated with the theta-roles. As I understand Boeckx and Hornstein’s proposal, the difference between control and raising in Icelandic can be presented schematically as in (65)–(66). In the control structure (65), the subject checks a theta-role and possibly Inherent Case in the embedded clause. Then the subject moves to the matrix clause, where it checks another theta-role and possibly another Inherent Case. Finally, the subject lands in Spec,IP, where it checks Structural Case. If Inherent Case is checked in the matrix clause, it gets pronounced since it is the more marked situation. Otherwise, Structural Case is realized. (65)

Control [CP [IP Subject [vP Subject [CP [IP Subject [vP Subject …]]]]]] STRUCTURAL (INHERENT)/θ2 (INHERENT)/θ1

In the raising construction (66), the subject checks a theta-role feature and possibly Inherent Case in the embedded clause before it moves to Spec,IP of the matrix clause, where it checks Structural Case. If Inherent Case is checked downstairs, it is eventually realized for the same aforementioned reason, namely, markedness. (66)

Raising [CP [IP Subject STRUCTURAL

[IP Subject

[vP Subject …]]]] (INHERENT)/θ1

This account works very well for Assamese, especially insofar as that the subordinate subject seems to be able to check Inherent Case only. The only Structural Case that might be available for CNP subjects is default

106

Forward/Backward Adjunct Control: The analysis

Case. Nevertheless, Boeckx and Hornstein’s account faces some problems when applied to other languages that license control structures that check Structural Case in subordinate clauses. The following section spells out the problem and proposes a solution. 6.3.2. Beyond Assamese: Case and Theta-Role Visibility The problem with Boeckx and Hornstein’s proposal is that it is based on the assumption that Structural Case cannot be checked in embedded nonfinite clauses and that a chain is always realized with one and only one Structural Case. These assumptions might work for Assamese, but they would not work for languages like Telugu. Like Assamese, Telugu licenses control into CNP clauses. Unlike CNP predicates in Assamese, however, Telugu CNP predicates check Structural Case on their subjects, as (67) and (68) illustrate. The (a) examples are instances of Forward Control, and the (b) examples are their Backward Control counterparts. Note that the CNP subjects in the Backward Control structures are Structural Case-marked nominative.3 (67)

(68)

a.

Forward Control [Kumaar laybrarii-ki weLL-i] [Kumar.NOM library-DAT go-CNP] Kumaar pustakam cadiwaa-Du Kumar.NOM book read-3.M.S ‘Having gone to the library, Kumar read a book.’

b.

Backward Control [Kumaar laybrarii-ki weLL-i] [Kumar.NOM library-DAT go-CNP] Kumaar pustakam cadiwaa-Du Kumar.NOM book read-3.M.S ‘Having gone to the library, Kumar read a book.’

a.

Forward Control [Sarita aa maaTa win-i] [Sarita.NOM that matter hear-CNP] Sarita-ki koopam waccin-di Sarita-DAT anger.NOM came-3.N.S ‘Sarita heard the news, and she/Sarita got angry.’

Case in raising vs. control

b.

107

Backward Control [Sarita aa maaTa win-i] [Sarita.NOM that matter hear-CNP] Sarita-ki koopam waccin-di Sarita-DAT anger.NOM came-3.N.S ‘Sarita heard the news, and she/Sarita got angry.’

Unlike CNP subject NPs in Assamese, Telugu CNP subject NPs check not only Inherent Case but also Structural Case before moving to a new Structural Case position. This requires multiple Structural Case checking, a phenomenon that is also attested in several languages (e.g., Bejar and Massam 1999; Merchant 2006). When this happens, the Case feature realized on the pronounced copy is contingent on the clause in which it is pronounced. In other words, if the highest copy is pronounced, then the Case feature that is checked in the highest clause is realized. According to Bejar and Massam (1999: 74), the reason is that the interpretability of Case features is local, requiring that “they be dominated by an appropriate functional head. In other words, Case is interpreted compositionally. Effectively, this means that the Case subscript is left behind when DP moves out of one Case-checking configuration into a higher one.” Bejar and Massam’s system has a small problem, however. According to their system, Case is interpreted locally, and the last Case that an argument checks is the one that is phonologically realized. This observation does not apply to the raising constructions presented in the previous section. What seems to be happening in raising constructions is that a subject NP checks Case downstairs before moving into a Case position upstairs. Contrary to Bejar and Massam’s prediction, however, the Case associated with the subordinate clause is realized. In other words, although the subject is “dominated by an appropriate functional head” in the matrix clause, the Case subscript that the subject takes on in the subordinate clause “is [not] left behind when DP moves out of one Case-checking configuration into a higher one.” In order to solve this problem, I build on both systems – Boeckx and Hornstein’s and Bejar and Massam’s – and suggest a principle that I call Theta-Role Visibility.4 (69)

Theta-Role Visibility a. An argument is visible for one round of Case checking iff it merges into a thematic position.

108

Forward/Backward Adjunct Control: The analysis

b.

A round of Case comprises Inherent Case followed by Structural Case, depending on the availability of an appropriate licenser for each.

What Theta-Role Visibility amounts to is the following: An argument first merges into a thematic position. This makes it visible for a round of Inherent and Structural Case checking, depending on the availability of an appropriate licenser for each. If both licensers are available, the argument checks both Cases. The result is usually the phonological realization of Inherent Case. If an argument moves into a new thematic position, it becomes visible for a new round of Case checking even if it has already checked Case. If Theta-Role Visibility is on the right track, it is able to explain why the subject in the control structures in Assamese, as well as Icelandic and Telugu, is realized with the Case of the matrix clause. This is because the subject checks a new theta-role feature in the matrix clause, which makes it visible for a new round of Case checking. The same is not available for the subject of a raising structure; in this case, the subject merges into one thematic position only, which makes it visible for only one round of Case checking. Let us see how Theta-Role Visibility as defined in (69) applies to the Adjunct Control structures under examination. Take the Telugu sentences in (70) as an example. Kumaar checks a theta-role feature [θ1] and Case [CASE1] in the CNP clause. [CASE1] comprises Structural Case (nominative) in (70a), but Inherent Case plus Structural Case (dative plus nominative, with the former phonologically realized) in (70b). Kumaar undergoes sideward movement to a new thematic position [θ2] in the matrix clause. This makes it visible for a new round of Case checking [CASE2], which happens to comprise Structural Case only (nominative) in both sentences. At PF, Chain Reduction chooses which copy to delete and which to pronounce. The result can be either Forward or Backward Control. (70)

a.

[CP [IP Kumaar CASE2 [vP [CNP Kumaar θ1/CASE1 cinema [CP [IP Kumar.NOM [vP [CNP Kumar.NOM movie cees-tuu] [vP Kumaar θ2 popcorn tinnaa-Du]]]] popcorn ate-3.M.S]]]] watch-CNP] [vP Kumar ‘While watching a movie, Kumar ate popcorn.’

Conclusion

b.

109

[CP [IP Kumaar CASE2 [vP [CNP Kumaar-ki θ1/CASE1 [CP [IP Kumar.NOM [vP [CNP Kumar-DAT jwaram wacc-i] [vP Kumaar θ2 hospital fever come-CNP] [vP Kumar hospital weLLaa-Du]]]] went-3.M.S]]]] ‘Having had a fever, Kumar went to the hospital.’

What happens if the argument moves into a new Case position without moving into a new thematic position? This is exactly the scenario in the Icelandic passive construction and the Icelandic and Assamese raising constructions presented above. The argument moves into a Case position without landing in a new/second theta-role position. According to Theta-Role Visibility, if the argument has already completed a round of Case checking – that is, if it has checked Structural Case, possibly on top of Inherent Case – no further Case checking is possible. In other words, movement does not make the argument visible for a new round of Case checking. This is why the subject is realized with the Case it checks in the subordinate clause. 7. Conclusion This chapter presented a detailed analysis of Forward and Backward Control structures in Assamese. Both types of control are analyzed as instances of sideward movement. They both have the same derivational history. The difference between the two lies in the phonological component, where Chain Reduction applies for the purpose of linearization. Forward Control obtains when Chain Reduction chooses to delete the CNP subject. Backward Control, on the other hand, obtains when Chain Reduction deletes the matrix subject. The latter option is not readily available in Assamese, with judgments of Assamese Backward Control structures ranging from acceptable but dispreferred to unacceptable. The reason is that an Assamese CNP clause does not check the Structural Case feature of its subject. This puts the CNP subject at a disadvantage, making it a more susceptible victim of Chain Reduction. In addition to the analysis, the chapter dealt with the theoretical problem of multiple Case checking that the movement approach to control faces. Section 5 showed that there is enough empirical evidence to rule out the challenge that traditional Case Theory might present to the movement approach. Section 6 dealt with the empirical side of multiple Case checking.

110

Forward/Backward Adjunct Control: The analysis

Considering that the movement approach derivationally puts control in the same category as raising, the section focused on the discrepancies in the Case behavior of subject NPs in raising vs. control structures and proposed a solution that can be summarized in the principle Theta-Role Visibility.

Chapter 4 Copy Adjunct Control: The analysis

1. Introduction Chapter 2 provided evidence for the different types of control into CNP clauses allowed in Assamese. Chapter 3 outlined the mechanisms involved in the derivation of two types of Adjunct Control: Forward and Backward Control. This chapter analyzes a third type of Adjunct Control that Assamese allows: Copy Control. As (1) illustrates, Copy Control constructions involve two coreferential subjects that are phonologically realized. The sentences in (2) are examples. They show that the CNP subject and the matrix subject are obligatorily coreferential. Disjoint subjects result in ungrammaticality. All the sentences in (2) contain an experiential CNP predicate. Some of them license a genitive subject, (2a–e), and some license experiential nominative subjects, (2f–h). The matrix subject may be realized as a pronoun, an epithet, or an R-expression. (1) (2)

Copy Control [Matrix [Subordinate Subjecti…]

[Matrix Subjecti…]]

CNP subject: Inherent Case a. [Upanita-ri gɦɒ r-ot amoni [Upanita-GEN house-LOC boredom party gɔ l lag-i] taii/*k/Upanita feel-CNP] she.ABS/Upanita.ABS party went ‘Upanita felt bored at home, and she went to a party.’ b.

[Prɒ xad-ɒ ri lobɦ lag-i] [Proxad-GEN greed feel-CNP] cake-to xii/*k/gadɦ a-to-ei/*k/Prɒ xad-e he.NOM/donkey-CL-NOM/Proxad-NOM cake-CL khal-e ate-3 ‘Proxad got greedy, and he/the idiot ate the cake.’

112

Copy Adjunct Control: The analysis

c.

[baccha-to-ri andɦ ar-ot bɦɒ e lag-i] [child-CL-GEN dark-LOC fear feel-CNP] light-to zolal-e xi/*k /baccha-to-e he.NOM/child-CL-NOM light-CL turned on-3 ‘The child felt scared in the dark, and he turned on the light.’

d.

[Sarita-ri thanda lag-i] [Sarita-GEN cold feel-CNP] taii/*k/Sarita-e jacket pindɦ il-e she.NOM/Sarita-NOM jacket wore-3 ‘Sarita felt cold, and she put on a jacket.’

e.

[Ram-ɒ ri xadu kɒ tha eta-t khɒ ŋ [Ram-GEN small matter one-LOC anger uth-i] tari/*k/gadɦ a-to-ri/*k/Ram-ɒ r raise-CNP] he.GEN/donkey-CL-GEN/Ram-GEN bea lagil bad felt ‘Ram got angry for a silly reason, and he/the idiot felt bad.’

f.

[Sarita-ei boyfriend-ɒ r lɒ gɒ t [Sarita-EXP.NOM boyfriend-GEN with amoni pa-i] tairi/*k/Sarita-r boredom happen-CNP] she.GEN/Sarita-GEN asorit lagil surprised felt ‘Sarita got bored with her boyfriend, and she felt surprised.’

g.

[Sarita-ei eman sinta kɔ r-i] [Sarita-EXP.NOM a lot worry did-CNP] tairi/*k/beseri-r/Sarita-r ga bea she.GEN/poor girl-GEN/Sarita-GEN body bad ɦɔ l became ‘Sarita worried so much, and she/the poor girl felt sick.’

Introduction

h.

113

[Ram-ei khɒ ŋ kɔ r-i] [Ram-EXP.NOM anger raise-CNP] mor gɦɒ r-to xii/*k/gadɦ a-to-ei/*k/Ram-e he.NOM/donkey-CL-NOM/Ram-NOM my house-CL bɦ aŋil-e destroyed-3 ‘Ram got angry (expressed his anger), and he/the idiot destroyed my house.’

As I mentioned in Chapter 2, Assamese Copy Control obtains only if three conditions are met. The CNP subject is Inherent Case-marked, the CNP clause is sentence-initial, and the CNP subject is nonpronominal. If any of these conditions is violated, Copy Control becomes unacceptable. For example, if the CNP subject is Structural Case-marked nominative or absolutive, (3a–f), Copy Control is usually judged to be unacceptable, although some speakers found the sentences degraded but not completely unacceptable. (3)

CNP subject: Structural Case a. ?/*[Ram-e Sarita-k dukh loga-i] [Ram-NOM Sarita-ACC sad make feel-CNP] tar/gadɦ a-to-r/Ram-ɒ r bea lagil he.GEN/donkey-CL-GEN/Ram-GEN bad felt ‘Ram made Sarita sad, and he/the idiot felt bad.’ b.

?/*[satro-zɒ n-e porikha pass kɔ r-i] [student-CL-NOM exam pass do-CNP] gorob lagil tar/satro-zɒ n-ɒ r he.GEN/student-CL-GEN pride felt ‘The student passed the exam, and he felt proud.’

c.

?/*[suali-zɒ ni-e rodo-t dɔ ur-i] [girl-CL-NOM sun-LOC run-CNP] tair/suali-zɒ ni-r piaɦ lagil she.GEN/girl-CL-GEN thirst felt ‘The girl ran in the sun, and she felt thirsty.’

114

Copy Adjunct Control: The analysis

d.

?/*[manuɦ -to-e gɦɒ r-ot aɦ -i] [man-CL-NOM house-LOC come-CNP] ga dɦ ul-e xi/manuɦ -to-e he.NOM/man-CL-NOM body wash-3 ‘The man came home, and he took a shower.’

e.

?/*[Prɒ xad por-i] [Proxad.ABS fall-CNP] besera-to-e/Prɒ xad-e ɦ at bɦ aŋil-e poor guy-CL-NOM/Proxad-NOM hand broke-3 ‘Proxad fell down, and the poor guy broke his arm.’

f.

?/*[Ram-e kukur-to ɦ eru-i] [Ram-NOM dog-CL lose-CNP] tar/besera-to-r dukh lagil he.GEN/poor guy-CL-GEN sad felt ‘Ram lost his dog, and he/the poor guy felt sad.’

In (4a–b), the CNP clauses are not sentence-initial; both sentences are ungrammatical. In (5a–b), on the other hand, the CNP clauses are sentenceinitial, but the CNP subjects are pronouns; again, both sentences are ungrammatical. (4)

(5)

a.

*xi/Prɒ xad-e [tar/Prɒ xad-ɒ r he.NOM/Proxad-NOM [he.GEN/Proxad-GEN lobɦ lag-i] cake-to khal-e greed feel-CNP] danced-CL ate-3 ‘Having got greedy, Proxad ate the cake.’

b.

*xi/Ram-e [tar/Ram-ɒ r phurti he.NOM/Ram-NOM [he.GEN/Ram-GEN exhilaration lag-i] pagolor nisena nasil-e feel-CNP] crazy person like danced-3 ‘Having felt very happy, Ram danced like a crazy person.’

a.

*[tar lobɦ lag-i] xi/Prɒ xad-e [he.GEN greed feel-CNP] he.NOM/Proxad-NOM cake khal-e cake ate-3 ‘Having got greedy, Proxad ate the cake.’

Copy Control as movement

b.

115

*[tar phurti lag-i] [he.GEN exhilaration feel-CNP] xi/Ram-e pagolor nisena he.NOM/Ram-NOM crazy person like nasil-e danced-3 ‘Having felt very happy, Ram danced like a crazy person.’

Section 3 presents the derivational history of the Copy Control structures under examination. The presentation is based on the assumption that Copy Control is movement. There is a possibility, however, that Copy Control obtains as a result of base-generated resumption. In this case, the matrix subject NP is a base-generated resumptive element rather than a copy of a moving element. Section 2 examines this possibility and concludes that Copy Control must be movement. Sections 4 through 6 address problems faced by the derivation presented in Section 3. Section 7 is a conclusion. 2. Copy Control as movement Over the last decade, research has shown that there are two types of resumption: (i) base-generated resumption and (ii) resumption as movement. In the former, the resumptive element relates to its antecedent via binding. In the latter, the resumptive element relates to its antecedent via movement (e.g., Aoun, Choueiri, and Hornstein 2001; Boeckx 2003).1 In this section, I argue that Copy Control belongs to the latter category of resumption and that the two pronounced subjects are coreferential as a result of movement rather than binding. First of all, base-generated resumption takes place as a last resort when movement is not allowed. For example, base-generated resumptive elements show up in complex noun phrases, wh-islands, and adjunct islands, out of which movement is illegal (Aoun, Choueiri, and Hornstein 2001: 372; McCloskey 2005). CNP clauses are adjuncts, and movement out of adjuncts is normally disallowed. This might be sufficient evidence to argue that Copy Control is the outcome of base-generated resumption. If this is correct, the prediction is that a resumptive element should be realized inside the CNP clause all the time, contrary to fact. Copy Control obtains only if the CNP clause is sentence-initial. If the CNP clause is sentence-internal, only Forward or Backward Control is allowed; Copy Control is unacceptable. This discre-

116

Copy Adjunct Control: The analysis

pancy rules out base-generated resumption and suggests that sideward movement out of CNP clauses is legal. The conclusion is in line with the assumption that the CNP subject undergoes sideward movement before the CNP clause undergoes adjunction – that is, before it acquires the status of an adjunct (Rodriguez 2004: 114 and works cited therein). Further, McCloskey (2005: 97) holds that a resumptive element may be either a pronoun – clitic, strong pronoun, or even pro (Cinque 1990) – or an epithet. “That is,” he writes, “resumptive pronouns simply are (formally) pronouns.” As we know by now, both pronounced subjects in a Copy Control construction may be R-expressions. This observation is not restricted to proper nouns (Proxad, Ram, etc.); it extends to all types of NPs, as sentences (6)–(7) illustrate. (6)

[boss-to-r/mor boss-to-r bɦ al lag-i] [boss-CL-GEN my boss-CL-GEN good feel-CNP] boss-to-e/mor boss-to-e employee-bur-ok boss-CL-NOM/my boss-CL-NOM employee-P-ACC bonus dil-e bonus gave-3 ‘The boss/My boss felt good and gave his employees bonuses.’

(7)

[employee-to-r bɦ ok lag-i] [employee-CL-GEN hunger feel-CNP] employee-to-e posa bɦ at khal-e employee-CL-NOM stale rice ate-3 ‘The employee felt hungry and ate stale rice.’

In addition, resumptive pronouns show up in positions normally occupied by gaps or traces (e.g., Sells 1984; Shlonsky 1992; Boeckx 2003: 14; McCloskey 2005: 94). Assuming that “movement always proceeds from a subordinated to a subordinating domain” (Nunes 2001: 329),2 this means that gaps and resumptive pronouns occupy subordinate structures. If Copy Control were the result of base-generated resumption, one would expect the CNP subject to be a resumptive pronominal and the matrix subject to be an R-expression. This is not the case, however. The CNP subject in Assamese Copy Control has to be a nonpronominal element. It is hard to imagine how a base-generated resumptive pronominal could be realized as an Rexpression that has to relate to an antecedent – possibly a pronoun or an epithet – via binding.

Copy Control: The derivational history

117

Notice that this restriction does not pose a problem for the movement approach to Copy Control. Under the Copy Theory of Movement , the CNP subject copies out of the CNP clause and merges in the matrix clause as an exact copy of the same token. Decisions concerning which copy should be pronounced as an R-expression and which copy should be a pronominal are made in the phonological component, most probably in accordance with precedence relations as we will see in Section 6.3 This section has presented a brief diagnosis to show that Assamese Copy Control is unlikely to be the result of base-generated resumption. The conclusion arrived at here is not limited to Assamese; it readily applies to Copy Control in other South Asian languages (see Section 6.3 in Chapter 2 for some examples, and see Haddad 2010a for a similar analysis of Telugu Copy Control as resumption). The chapter proceeds by analyzing Copy Control as movement. 3. Copy Control: The derivational history The derivation of Copy Control is similar, though not identical, to the derivation of Forward and Backward Control presented in Chapter 3. Both derivations rely on Nunes’s (2004) theory of movement. According to Nunes, movement comprises four independent operations: Copy, Merge, Form Chain, and Chain Reduction. When a syntactic object α moves, it copies out of a subordinated domain and merges into a subordinating domain. Then, the two copies of α form a chain in accordance with Form Chain as formulated in (8). At PF, the structure is linearized in order to satisfy the Linear Correspondence Axiom in (9). The main idea behind (9) is that in real time, a syntactic object cannot both follow and precede itself. This is when Chain Reduction, as stated in (10), applies. Accordingly, only one of the copies of α is phonologically realized. (8)

(9)

Conditions on Form Chain Two constituents X and Y form a chain if and only if a. X and Y are nondistinct; b. X commands Y. The Linear Correspondence Axiom Let X, Y be nonterminals and x, y terminals such that X dominates x and Y dominates y. Then if X asymmetrically c-commands Y, x precedes y. (Kayne 1994: 33)

118

Copy Adjunct Control: The analysis

(10)

Chain Reduction Delete the minimal number of constituents of a nontrivial chain CH that suffices for CH to be mapped into a linear order in accordance with the L[inear] C[orrespondence] A[xiom]. (Nunes 2004: 27, (44))

Given the above, the Assamese Copy Control structure in (11) will have the derivational history outlined in (12). The CNP clause and the matrix clause form independently in (12a). The CNP subject copy-plus-merges with the matrix vP in (12b). In (12c), the matrix subject moves from Spec,vP to Spec,IP to check the EPP feature. Then, the CNP clause merges with the matrix clause at CP, as (12d–i) shows. The tree in (12d–ii) is a snapshot of the derivation up to this point. It mainly highlights c-command. As the dotted arrows show, the two matrix copies of Ram {[NP Ramd], [NP Ramc]} enter a c-command relationship and form a chain. The two CNP copies {[NP Ramb], [NP Rama]} also enter a c-command relationship and form a chain. No CNP copy, on the other hand, enters a c-command relation with a matrix copy. At PF, Chain Reduction applies for the purpose of linearization. As (12e) illustrates, the lower copy of Ram in each chain is deleted. Thus, [NP Ramc] and [NP Rama] undergo deletion. Two copies, [NP Ramb] and [NP Ramd], survive deletion, resulting in Copy Control. (11)

[Ram-ɒ r bɦ ok lag-i] [Ram-GEN hunger feel-CNP] bɦ at khal-e rice ate-3 ‘Having felt hungry, Ram ate rice.’

(12)

a.

b.

Ram-e Ram-NOM

i.

[CNPP [NP Ram-ɒ r] [vP [NP Ram-ɒ r] [CNPP [NP Ram-GEN] [vP [NP Ram-GEN] bɦ ok lag-i]] hunger feel-CNP]]

ii.

[Matrix vP bɦ at [Matrix vP rice

i.

[NP Ram]

ii.

[Matrix vP [NP Ram-e] bɦ at khal-e]

khal-e] ate-3]

Copy Control: The derivational history

c.

[CP [Matrix IP [NP Ram] [Matrix vP [NP Ram] bɦ at khal-e]]]

d.

i.

119

[CP [CNPP [NP Ram-ɒ r b] [vP [NP Ram-ɒ r a] bɦ ok lag-i]] [CP [Matrix IP [NP Ram-e d] [Matrix vP [NP Ram-e c] bɦ at khal-e]]]]

ii.

CP qp CNPP CP qu 3 SUBJ I' IP C b Ram-ɒr 3 3 vP I SUBJ I' 3 Ram-ed 3 SUBJ 6 vP I a bɦok lag-i 3 Ram-ɒr SUBJ 6 Ram-ec bɦat khal-e e.

[CP [CNPP [NP Ram-ɒ r b] [vP [NP Ram-ɒ r a] bɦ ok lag-i]] [CP [Matrix IP [NP Ram-e d] [Matrix vP [NP Ram-e c] bɦ at khal-e]]]]

The main difference between (12) and the derivational history of Forward and Backward Control structures is the merging site of the CNP clause. In Copy Control constructions, the CNP clause merges clauseinitially at CP, as (12d) shows. In Forward and Backward Control constructions, however, the CNP clause merges clause-internally at vP. Subsequently, the CNP clause may or may not move to a sentence-initial position and merge at CP of the matrix clause. A word is in order about the interpretation dependency in Copy Control. Control interpretation – especially in nonmovement approaches within the Principles and Parameters framework – are contingent on c-command. In Copy Control, the two subjects do not enter a c-command relationship. The question is: How does the matrix subject determine the identity of the CNP subject – or vice versa – if the two do not enter a c-command relationship? The simple answer, and probably the only one, is movement. The two copies are coreferential because they are copies of the same token derived via movement.

120

Copy Adjunct Control: The analysis

The analysis presented in this section faces three problems. These can be summarized as follows: 





The two pronounced subjects in a Copy Control structure escape deletion owing to the lack of c-command and Form Chain. Nevertheless, according to the Linear Correspondence Axiom as stated in (9), they are still nondistinct copies in a precedence relationship. Accordingly, they still induce a violation. The CNP clause becomes an adjunct – and thus an island for movement – only when it adjoins to the matrix clause. In a Copy Control structure, the CNP clause merges with the matrix clause at CP rather than at vP. This means that the CNP clause is accessible for movement for a longer period of time, which may result in the overgeneration of undesired structures. The analysis in this section does not explain why the CNP subject has to be an R-expression while the matrix subject can be either an Rexpression or a pronominal (a pronoun or an epithet).4

The following sections explain the problems in more detail and suggest solutions. I begin with the issue of linearization. 4. Copy Control and linearization The Linear Correspondence Axiom as formulated in (9), repeated here as (13), predicts that the derivation in (12) must not converge. The reason resides in the definition of precedence. As (13) indicates, a terminal x precedes a terminal y if x and y are in a c-command relationship or if the nonterminal X that dominates x c-commands y. (13)

Let X, Y be nonterminals and x, y terminals such that X dominates x and Y dominates y. Then if X asymmetrically c-commands Y, x precedes y. (Kayne 1994: 33)

If we apply (13) to the derivation in (12), we realize that at the end of the derivation the nonterminal CNP clause asymmetrically c-commands the matrix IP, as (14) illustrates. Therefore, the CNP subject precedes the matrix subject. Since the two subjects are copies of the same token – that is, they are nondistinct – the same element precedes and follows itself in the same structure, inducing a violation of the Linear Correspondence Axiom.

Copy Control and linearization

121

Therefore, one of the copies must be deleted in order for the structure to converge. (14)

CP qp CNP CP 3 3 SUBJ 6 IP C … 3 PRECEDES SUBJ 6 …

Such instances of sideward movement are labeled as “unwanted” in Nunes’s system. The reason is that they involve two nondistinct copies that are in a precedence relationship; thus, they need to be linearized and one of them has to be deleted. Nevertheless, the two copies do not form a chain because neither copy c-commands the other. Consequently, Chain Reduction cannot apply at PF and the structure cannot be mapped into a linear order in accordance with the Linear Correspondence Axiom. To avoid such “unwanted applications of sideward movement,” Nunes (2004: 51–52, 159) holds that Form Chain, although an independent operation, is mandatory. If Form Chain does not apply, the derivation crashes. The derivation in (12) does converge, however. Two copies escape Chain Reduction and are actually pronounced. This means that the theory must be able to accommodate the data. Fortunately, there is a way to do so while still preserving the essence of Kayne’s Linear Correspondence Axiom and Nunes’s theory of movement. Copy Control may be grouped with other instances of multiple copy spell-out in which more than one copy of the same token is phonologically realized. Several analyses have been offered to account for the phenomenon. Section 4.1 explores two such analyses, one proposed by Nunes (2001, 2004) and one by Fujii (2005). Building on Section 4.1 and on work related to cyclic linearization, Section 4.2 shows that if Multiple Spell-Out (Uriagereka 1999) is added to Nunes’s system, whereby a structure is transferred to the phonological component multiple times throughout the derivation rather than once at the end of the derivation, Copy Control may receive an analysis similar to the analysis offered for the other instances of multiple copy spell-out.

122

Copy Adjunct Control: The analysis

4.1. Multiple copy spell-out Multiple copy spell-out is attested in several languages. For example, Afrikaans allows multiple pronounced copies of a wh-chain in a question, (14) (du Plessis 1977). Vata allows multiple overt copies of a verb chain, (15) (Koopman 1984). Kandybowicz (2006) analyzes pronominal resumption, verbal repetition, and predicate clefting in Nupe as multiple copy spell-out. Sentence (16) is an example of pronominal resumption. (15)

Afrikaans Met wie het jy nou weer gesê met wie with who did you now again said with who het Sarie gedog met wie gaan Jan trou? did Sarie thought with who go Jan marry ‘Whom did you say again that Sarie thought Jan is going to marry?’

(16)

Vata li à li-da eat 1.P eat-PAST ‘We did eat rice yesterday.’

(17)

zué yesterday

saká rice

Nupe Gana Musa kpe ganan uu gi bise Gana Musa know COMP 3.S eat hen ‘Musa knows that GANA (emphatic) ate the hen.’

o o

Before trying to propose an explanation for the Assamese Copy Control phenomenon, I survey the literature for possible accounts. 4.1.1. Nunes’s analysis The multiple copies realized in each of (15)–(17) are nondistinct copies in a c-command relationship. In Nunes’s system, the two copies form a chain and, accordingly, they must undergo Chain Reduction. But they do not. How do two copies of the same token escape Chain Reduction? According to Nunes (2004: 40), this is possible only if one of the copies hides inside another word, thus becoming invisible to the Linear Correspondence Axiom. More specifically, if a copy in a given chain adjoins to another

Copy Control and linearization

123

head, both the copy and the head are “morphologically reanalyzed as a single terminal element” or a single “phonological word.” In the theory of Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz 1993), this process is called Fusion. The Linear Correspondence Axiom cannot see into words or fused links and, consequently, the lower copy escapes deletion. To illustrate, building on Koopman’s (1984) analysis, Nunes (2004: 46– 48) holds that the higher copy of the verb li ‘eat’ in (16) moves to a focus position preceding IP. The verb and the head of the focus projection are fused into a single terminal and are reanalyzed as a new phonological word. In this way, the Linear Correspondence Axiom does not detect the two occurrences of li ‘eat’ as copies of the same token. This means that the structure can be linearized without either copy being deleted. Consequently, neither copy undergoes Chain Reduction, an especially good result, given that Chain Reduction is a costly operation that applies minimally for the purpose of linearization and convergence, as (18) explicitly states. (18)

Delete the minimal number of constituents of a nontrivial chain CH that suffices for CH to be mapped into a linear order in accordance with the L[inear] C[orrespondence] A[xiom]. (Nunes 2004: 101, (31)) [my emphasis]

Not all instances of multiple copy spell-out are analyzed as involving an invisible fused copy – or a new phonological word. One such case is copy raising in English. The following section summarizes Fujii’s (2005) analysis of copy raising as an instance of multiple copy spell-out. 4.1.2. Fujii’s analysis English allows structures like the one in (19) that involve a raising verb (here, seem) and two subjects that are obligatorily coreferential and pronounced. These are known as copy-raising constructions (e.g., Rogers 1971; Postal 1974). (19)

a. b.

Tomi seems as if hei/*k is seeing someone. *Tom seems as if he is seeing someone.

Fujii (2005) analyzes such instances of copy raising as movement. Details aside, Fujii presents empirical evidence to show that the subordinate clause in (19a) is a CP and that the structure involves movement.5 As he

124

Copy Adjunct Control: The analysis

points out, however, this type of movement seems to be different from, say, wh-movement as exemplified in (20). In both cases, an argument moves out of a lower CP into a higher clause. The obvious difference between the two structures is that two copies of the moving element are pronounced in (19a) while only one is pronounced in (20). (20)

What did you say that Tom bought what?

To account for this difference, Fujii holds that the subject in (19a) does not land in Spec,CP on its way to the matrix clause, while the wh-element in (20) does. This idea is schematized in (21a–b). Evidence for (21a) comes from structures like (22). The argument is that if Tom landed in Spec,CP on its way to Spec,IP of the matrix clause, wh-movement out of the subordinate CP would not be possible (Fujii 2005: 10–12). (21)

(22)

a.

[CP Tom seems [CP [C' as if [IP Tom is seeing someone]]]]

b.

[CP What did [IP you say [CP what [C' that [IP … what]]]]]

a.

Who does Tom seem like he has met?

b.

[CP Who does [IP Tom seem [CP who [C' like [IP … who]]]]]

How does landing vs. not landing in Spec,CP affect the phonological realizations of copies at PF? According to Fujii, the answer resides in the formulation of Chain Reduction. In Nunes 2004, Chain Reduction applies at the end of the derivation. Fujii resorts to Cyclic Chain Reduction, whereby Chain Reduction applies cycle by cycle or, more specifically, phase by phase. Following Chomsky (2000, 2001), Fujii assumes that a phase is a vP or a CP. His formulation of Cyclic Chain Reduction is stated in (23). Fujii also adopts Chomsky’s Phase Impenetrability Condition in (24), which states that when a phase is spelled out, its edge can still take part in further syntactic operations. Fujii formulates (25) as a consequence of (24). (23)

Cyclic Chain Reduction Delete all copies of chain CH [within a phase] but the highest one. (Fujii 2005: 1–2, (1))

Copy Control and linearization

(24)

(25)

125

Phase Impenetrability Condition At the phase ZP containing phase HP, the domain of H is not accessible to operations, but only the edge of HP. (Chomsky 2001: 13; see also Chomsky 2004: 108) The role of the phase edge in Chain Reduction The highest copy in phase PH that has not undergone deletion can be deleted later only if it is in the edge of PH. (Fujii 2005: 3, (7))

Let us take a closer look at (21a–b), repeated with more details as (26a– b), in the light of Cyclic Chain Reduction. In both (26a) and (26b), the subordinate CP forms first. In (26b), but not in (26a), the moving element uses Spec,CP as an escape hatch. By the time the following phase head is introduced, the lower phase is spelled out and Cyclic Chain Reduction (CCR1) applies, deleting the lower copy of Tom in (26a) and of what in (26b). At this point, all of the lower CP minus its edge is spelled out, as the boldfaced part of each derivation shows. When the following phase (the higher CP) is spelled out, Cyclic Chain Reduction (CCR2) applies. What in Spec,CP of (26b), being at the edge of the lower phase, undergoes deletion. The subordinate copy of Tom in (26a), on the other hand, survives deletion in accordance with (24) and (25), or, as Fujii (2005: 2) puts it, the lower copy survives deletion because it is “invisible for the operation [CCR2] since [it is] not contained in the relevant domain.” CCR2

(26)

a.

[CP [IP Tom seems [CP [C' as if [IP Tom is [vP Tom [VP seeing someone]]]]]]] CCR2

b.

CCR1

CCR1

[CP What did [IP … [CP what [C' that [IP … what]]]]]

Fujii’s analysis is certainly elegant, but it is not without problems. First, the structure in (26a) violates the Linear Correspondence Axiom. The two copies of the subject are nondistinct and in a precedence relationship.6 If both are pronounced, this means that the same element c-commands itself, which violates linearization. Further, although Chain Reduction applies cyclically in Fujii’s system, Fujii remains silent with respect to the operation Form Chain. Let us assume that Form Chain may apply across phases. This means that the two

126

Copy Adjunct Control: The analysis

copies of the subject in copy-raising constructions do form a chain. Therefore, Chain Reduction must apply. When Chain Reduction (CCR2) applies in the higher CP, it cannot mark the lower copy of the subject for deletion because the lower copy is in a different phase; but it should be able to mark the higher copy since that copy is within its jurisdiction, so to speak. Yet we never see structures like (27), where the higher subject is deleted. (Notice that deletion of copies at PF takes place regardless of Case and visibility.) (27)

Tom seems as if Tom is seeing someone.

Fujii avoids the problem exemplified in (27) by limiting deletion to the lower copies only, as (23) explicitly states. Evidence from Backward Control – not only in Assamese, but also in Japanese (Kuroda 1965, 1978), Tsez (Polinsky and Potsdam 2002), Malagasy (Polinsky and Potsdam 2003), Korean (Monahan 2003), and Telugu (Haddad 2009a) – shows that the higher copy is also susceptible to deletion, which makes the formulation in (23) a stipulation. Note, however, that according to the Phase Impenetrability Condition in (24), the domain of the phase is not accessible to any operation, including Form Chain. This means that Form Chain cannot operate across phases. Instead of solving the problem in (27), however, the failure of Form Chain to apply creates an even more complicated problem. The reason is that at PF linearization is able to detect that the two copies of Tom are nondistinct and in a precedence relation. Yet the failure of Form Chain to apply means that no Chain Reduction is possible. The result is again a violation of the Linear Correspondence Axiom. This said, it is important to note that the problems in Fujii’s analysis are minor. The following section suggests that they can be avoided by adopting Uriagereka’s (1999) Multiple Spell-Out approach whereby every time a part of the structure is spelled out, it is converted into a phonological word that linearization cannot see into. Most crucially, the new formulation will be able to account for Copy Control in Assamese. 4.2. Multiple copy spell-out and Multiple Spell-Out Chomsky’s (2000, 2004) Phase Impenetrability Condition, as stated in (24), follows from the assumption that a structure is transferred to the phonological component – or spelled out – phase by phase (a phase being a vP or a

Copy Control and linearization

127

CP). This means that a structure undergoes spell-out several times throughout the derivation. Whenever a phase head is introduced, the newly created phase is spelled out, and the phase head’s complement is no longer transparent to syntactic operations. To illustrate, when a CP phase is spelled out, IP-complement-of-C0 (but not the edge of CP: Spec,CP and C0) becomes opaque to all syntactic operations. Empirical support for this approach comes from Franks and Bošković 2001 and Fox and Pesetsky 2005, among several other works. Franks and Bošković present evidence from Bulgarian clitic-ordering to argue in favor of multiple spell-out by phase. Fox and Pesetsky build a theory of cylic linearization and order preservation based on phases, and they use it to account for the constraints on Object Shift (Holmberg’s Generalization) and Quantifier Movement (inverse Holmberg effect) in Scandinavian.7 See also Ko 2007, where Fox and Pesetsky’s cylic linearization and order preservation are applied to scrambling in Korean. Uriagereka (1999) also argues that Multiple Spell-Out is part of the computational system. He holds that spell-out applies, not only at the end of the derivation, but multiple times throughout the derivation.8 According to Uriagereka (1999: 256), when a domain is spelled out, it is converted into a nonphrasal structure or a giant lexical compound that is interpretable, yet inaccessible to further syntactic operations. Spell-out transfers a phase to the phonological component, and linearization takes place in the phonological component. This means that when a phase is spelled out, it is also linearized. Subsequently, the spelled-out phase is converted into a giant word that is transparent to interpretation but opaque to all syntactic operations. The following sections examine the influence of Multiple Spell-Out on the analysis of copy raising and Copy Control. Section 4.2.1 shows that Multiple Spell-Out is superior to Cyclic Chain Reduction. Section 4.2.2 extends the analysis to Copy Control. 4.2.1. Multiple Spell-Out and copy raising As I mentioned in Section 4.1.2, Fujii’s (2005) analysis of copy-raising structures like (28a) faces a problem. The two pronounced subjects in (28b), [NP Tomc] and [NP Tomb], are in a precedence relationship; consequently, one of them has to be deleted in order for the structure to linearize. Yet this does not happen, because of the cyclicity of Form Chain and Chain Reduction. The result is a violation of the Linear Correspondence Axiom.

128

Copy Adjunct Control: The analysis

(28)

a.

Tom seems as if he is seeing someone. CCR2

b.

CCR1

[CP [IP Tomc seems [CP [C' as if [IP Tom b is [vP Tom a [VP seeing someone]]]]]]]

Let us consider the derivational history of (28) in the light of Multiple Spell-Out as described in the previous section. The subordinate CP forms in (29a). [NP Toma] in Spec,vP copy-plus-merges as [NP Tomb] in Spec,IP. [NP Tomb] and [NP Toma] are nondistinct and in a c-command relationship; thus, they form a chain. The matrix IP is introduced in (29b). [NP Tomb] copy-plus-merges as [NP Tomc] in Spec,IP of the matrix clause, crossing over Spec,CP of the subordinate clause. The matrix CP is introduced in (29c). This is when the subordinate CP is spelled out. Chain Reduction applies to the chain {[NP Tomb], [NP Toma]} and the lower copy is deleted. The CP phase is linearized and converted into a phonological word, as the grey box signifies. As Uriagereka (1999: 256) puts it, the spelled-out CP is “no longer phrasal …; in essence, [it] is like a giant lexical compound, whose syntactic terms are obviously interpretable but are not accessible to movement, ellipsis, and so forth.” (29)

a. b.

[CP [C' as if [IP Tom b is [vP Tom a [VP seeing someone]]]]] [IP Tom c seems [CP [C' as if [IP Tom b is [vP Tom a [VP seeing someone]]]]]] CCR1

c.

[CP [IP Tom c seems [CP [C' as if [IP Tomb is [vP Toma [VP seeing someone]]]]]]]

How does this approach solve the violation of the Linear Correspondence Axiom induced in Fujii’s analysis? Because the subordinate CP is converted to a lexical compound, not only is the subordinate subject inaccessible to any syntactic operation, including Form Chain and Chain Reduction, but it is also invisible to linearization. Remember from Section 4.1.1 that in Nunes’s system an element may escape deletion if it hides within a phonological word by fusing with another head. The situation here is similar. The lower copy hides within the big phonological word that is produced by spell-out. Linearization cannot see into fused elements. Therefore, any word that hides within a spelled-out domain is not a problem for linearization or the Linear Correspondence Axiom.

Copy Control and linearization

129

An almost identical conclusion has been reached by Nunes and Uriagereka (2000). One major point makes the approach to Multiple Spell-Out adopted here different. I consider a spelled-out domain categorically inaccessible to any syntactic operations. A spelled-out domain in Nunes and Uriagereka’s (2000: 24, 32) analysis “is still accessible to the computational system, despite the fact that its constituent parts are, in a sense, gone; thus, for instance, [a spelled-out domain] … is visible to linearization when the whole structure is spelled-out” although “the computational system treats it as a lexical item.” This is possible “if c-command is obtained by the composition of the elementary relations of sisterhood and containment, as proposed by Chomsky (1998: 31).” Nunes and Uriagereka adopt this mysterious operation of Form Chain in order to account for (30). If Form Chain operates into a spelled-out domain, then [which paperd] may form a chain with [which paperb] inside the spelled-out PP – [PP after [CP [which paperb] reading [which papera]]]. If Form Chain cannot operate across phases, [which paperd] and [which paperb] cannot form a chain, and thus Chain Reduction fails to apply. In this case, the system fails to account for the deletion of [which paperb]. (30)

[CP [which paper d] did [IP John [vP [vP file [which paper c]] [PP after [CP [which paperb] reading [which paper a]]]]]

Fortunately, there is way to account for (30) while still considering spelled-out domains inaccessible to Form Chain and Chain Reduction. If the PP adjunct in (30) is considered a CP, as Grohmann (2003) suggests, then [which paperb] will occupy the edge of the phase, as (31) illustrates. In this way, when the adjunct is transferred to the phonological component, [which paperb], being at the edge of CP, will still be accessible to further syntactic operations, including Form Chain. When the following phase is spelled out, [which paperb] is already part of a chain {[which paperd], [which paperb]} and, consequently, undergoes Chain Reduction for the purpose of linearization.9 (31)

[CP [which paper d] did [IP John [vP [vP file [which paper c]] [CP [which paper b] after [IP reading [which paper a]]]]]]

130

Copy Adjunct Control: The analysis

4.2.2. Multiple Spell-Out and Copy Control Let us take another look at the derivation of the Assamese example in (11), repeated here as (32). The steps of the derivation are delineated in (33).10 The CNP clause and the matrix clause form independently in (33a), before the CNP subject copy-plus-merges with matrix vP in (33b). Then, the matrix subject moves from Spec,vP to Spec,IP to check the EPP feature, as sketched in (33c). The two nondistinct copies of Ram enter a c-command relationship and form a chain {[NP Ramd], [NP Ramc]}. In (33d), the matrix CP is spelled out and linearized. Chain Reduction applies and marks the lower copy of Ram, [NP Ramc], for deletion. The spelled-out domain is converted into a phonological word that is opaque to further syntactic operations, as symbolized by the grey box. Finally, the CNP clause merges with the matrix clause at CP. Although the matrix CP is spelled out, its edge is still accessible to such an operation. The two nondistinct CNP copies of Ram enter a c-command relationship and form a chain {[NP Ramb], [NP Rama]}. The whole structure is spelled out and linearized. Chain Reduction applies and marks the lower CNP copy of Ram, [NP Rama], for deletion. The structure converges as (33e). (32)

[Ram-ɒ r bɦ ok lag-i] Ram-e bɦ at [Ram-GEN hunger feel-CNP] Ram-NOM rice ‘Having felt hungry, Ram ate rice.’

(33)

a.

b.

khal-e ate-3

i.

[CNPP [NP Ram-ɒ r] [vP [NP Ram-ɒ r] [CNPP [NP Ram-GEN] [vP [NP Ram-GEN] lag-i]] bɦ ok hunger feel-CNP]]

ii.

[Matrix vP bɦ at [Matrix vP rice

i.

[NP Ram]

ii.

[Matrix vP [NP Ram-e] bɦ at khal-e]

khal-e] ate-3]

c.

[CP [Matrix IP [NP Ram] [Matrix vP [NP Ram] bɦ at khal-e]]]

d.

[CP [Matrix IP [NP Ram-ed] [Matrix vP [NP Ram-ec] bɦ at khal-e]]]

Copy Control and linearization

e.

i.

131

[CP [CNPP [NP Ram-ɒrb] [vP [NP Ram-ɒra] bɦok lag-i]] [CP [Matrix IP [NP Ram-e d] [Matrix vP [NP Ram-e c] bɦ at khal-e]]]]

ii.

CP qp CNPP CP qu rp SUBJ I' IP C Ram-ɒrb 3 3 vP I SUBJ I' 3 Ram-ed 3 SUBJ 6 vP I Ram-ɒra bɦok lag-i 3 SUBJ 6 Ram-ec bɦat khal-e The derivation in (33) does not violate the Linear Correspondence Axiom. Linearization is not able to detect [NP Ramd] of the matrix clause as a token of the same element as [NP Ramb]. The reason is that the matrix copy is hidden inside a spelled-out domain that behaves like a phonological word, and linearization cannot see into words. Consequently, precedence in the sense of Kayne 1994 is not detected and no violation is induced. Two issues remain. One is related to Nunes’s treatment of Form Chain. The second has to do with the timing of the spell-out of the matrix CP in (33). As Section 3 points out, the two pronounced copies in Copy Control structures do not form a chain for an independent reason: they do not enter a c-command relationship. This lack of c-command, according to Nunes, results in unwanted derivations. Closer examination, however, shows that in Nunes’s system Form Chain is obligatory in order to serve one purpose: linearization. The lack of Form Chain is a violation if linearization and the Linear Correspondence Axion are not satisfied. Stated differently, if linearization detects two nondistinct copies, one of them has to be deleted. In order for deletion – or Chain Reduction – to apply, the two nondistinct copies have to form a chain. If the two copies are no longer detected as nondistinct (because one of the copies is in a fused word or in a spelled-out domain), Form Chain is no longer an essential, derivation-saving operation. Therefore, the fact that the two pronounced subjects in Copy Control con-

132

Copy Adjunct Control: The analysis

structions are not in a c-command relationship and do not form a chain is no longer an issue. This might sound like an ad hoc stipulation that only serves the analysis of Copy Control structures. Nevertheless, we have seen that the two pronounced copies in copy-raising constructions like (34) do enter a ccommand relationship and, ideally, are able to form a chain. If this happens, the only copy that will be able to escape deletion is the subordinate copy. The reason is that it is inside a phase. The matrix copy, on the other hand, will be marked for deletion before the whole structure is spelled out. This does not happen, however, which indicates that Form Chain must fail to apply. In this sense, the lack of Form Chain is not only tolerated but also required. (34)

[CP [IP Tom seems [CP [C' as if [IP Tom is seeing someone] ]]]]

Nunes’s extensive work involves cases of multiple copy spell-out that are the result of movement minus Chain Reduction. Such cases involve duplication of focalized elements in Brazilian Sign Language and clitic duplication in some dialects of Argentinean Spanish (Nunes 2004: 38–61). One might wonder, however, why Nunes’s work does not involve similar cases that are the result of movement minus Form Chain. The reason is that spell-out in Nunes’s system takes place one time at the end of the derivation. This means that linearization happens only once after the syntax; that is, after all movement, feature checking, and – crucially – Form Chain take place. Multiple Spell-Out, however, dictates that parts of the derivation (arguably, phases) be spelled out before others. This means that linearization happens several times. This also means that a structure might involve one or more copies of a certain token that are well beyond the syntax, including Form Chain. At the same time, the structure might involve other copies of the same token that are still in the syntax and subject to Form Chain. This situation does not exist in Nunes’s system, yet it seems to be needed on empirical grounds. This same situation leads to movement minus Form Chain. The analysis shows the power of Nunes’s theory of movement. The theory formulates movement as comprising four independent steps: Copy, Merge, Form Chain, and Chain Reduction. And just as Chain Reduction does not apply under certain circumstances, so Form Chain may do the same.

Copy Control and linearization

133

As a matter of fact, the theory is so powerful that it allows Merge also not to apply. In other words, movement may, under certain circumstances, comprise only Copy. To illustrate, Nunes holds that instances of across-theboard movement take place if the numeration is exhausted but one more instance of Merge is needed in order for a structure to converge. One may argue that a token that is already in the structure does copy, but it only merges if (i) it needs to check a feature of its own or of the target, or (ii) the numeration is exhausted and it is the only element that can check a feature on a target. It is hard to think of empirical evidence to test this claim, but it is a fair theoretical prediction. We are left with the spell-out timing of CP in (33). The standard approach is that a phase is spelled out when another phase head is introduced or at the end of the derivation. The spell-out of CP in Copy Control seems to fall in neither category. When CP is spelled out, neither a new phase head is introduced, nor is it the end of the derivation (an adjunct still awaits merge). Closer examination shows that the matrix CP is actually spelled out at the end of the derivation. This observation follows from the properties of adjuncts. As Chomsky (2004: 117) points out, adjuncts are not selected by the head of the structure they adjoin to, and “if α is adjoined to β, the construction behaves as if α isn’t there apart from semantic interpretation.” In other words, when the matrix CP is complete, the computation processes the structure as if it is the end of the derivation, and CP is spelled out. What may be considered new here is that the edge of the matrix CP is still accessible to further computation (namely, the merge of the CNP clause) despite being spelled out in an end-of-the-derivation fashion. This is not a totally bizarre idea. If we consider the edge of CP as responsible for linking CP to other structures in discourse (Rizzi 1997; Chomsky 2004), then it is fair to assume that this edge is still active even after the final spell-out. I mentioned at the beginning of Section 4 that there is a way for the theory to account for Copy Control in Assamese while still preserving the essence of Kayne’s Linear Correspondence Axiom and Nunes’s theory of movement. The rest of the section showed that Copy Control, as well as copy raising, is derivationally only slightly different from other instances of multiple copy spell-out. According to Nunes, occurrences of multiple copy spell-out involve two nondistinct copies, one of which has become invisible to linearization as a result of fusion. At PF, linearization cannot see into the fused element. Accordingly, no precedence relationship is detected, and no

134

Copy Adjunct Control: The analysis

deletion/Chain Reduction takes place. The same mechanism applies in the case of Copy Control. The steps are summarized as follows:   

Two subject NPs are nondistinct copies of the same token. As a result of Multiple Spell-Out, one copy hides within a spelled-out domain and becomes part of a giant phonological word. This outcome is, in essence, identical to fusion. As a result, two copies escape deletion without inducing a violation of the Linear Correspondence Axiom simply because no precedence is detected.

The only difference between Nunes’s multiple copy spell-out and Copy Control is that the former involves movement minus Chain Reduction, while the latter involves movement minus Form Chain and Chain Reduction. Both types of movement are allowed only if no violation of the Linear Correspondence Axiom is induced. Forward/Backward Control is unaffected by this addition to the theory. Consider the Forward Control Structure in (35) and its derivation in (36). The CNP clause and the matrix clause form independently, and the CNP subject Ram copies out of the CNP clause (36a). Ram merges in Spec,vP of the matrix clause (36b). Then, the CNP clause adjoins to the matrix vP and becomes an island (36c). The matrix subject Ram moves from Spec,vP to Spec,IP to check the EPP feature, and C0 projects (36d). At this point, assuming that vPs are phases, the matrix vP is spelled out, as indicated by the grey font. The domain/complement of v0 is linearized and converted into a phonological word, but the edge of vP (including v0, Spec,vP, and the CNP clause/adjunct of vP) is still accessible to further computation. The copy of Ram in Spec,IP c-commands the copy in the CNP clause and the copy in Spec,vP, forming a chain with each, as the dotted arrows in (36e) indicate. Step (36f) takes place at PF. The lower copy in each chain is deleted in accordance with Chain Reduction. Finally, the whole structure is spelled out. (35)

Ram-e [Ram-e lottery jik-i] Ram-NOM [Ram-NOM lottery win-CNP] notun gɦɒ r kinil-e new house bought-3 ‘Having won the lottery, Ram bought a new house.’

Copy Control and linearization

(36)

a.

135

i.

[CNP [NP Ram-e] lottery jik-i] [NP Ram] [CNP [NP Ram-NOM] lottery win-CNP]

ii.

[Matrix vP notun [Matrix vP new

gɦɒ r kinil-e] house bought-3]

b.

[Matrix vP [NP Ram-e] notun gɦɒ r kinil-e]

c.

[Matrix IP [vP [CNP [NP Ram-e] lottery jik-i] [vP [NP Ram-e] notun gɦɒ r kinil-e]]]

d.

[Matrix IP [NP Ram-e] [vP [CNP [NP Ram-e] lottery jik-i] [vP [NP Ram-e] notun gɦɒ r kinil-e]]]

e.

CP 3 IP C qp SUBJ I' Ram-e qp vP I qp CNPP vP 3 3 SUBJ 6 SUBJ 6 Ram-e lottery jik-i Ram-e notun gɦɒr kinil-e

f.

At PF: [Matrix IP [NP Ram-e] [vP [CNP [NP Ram-e] lottery jik-i] [vP [NP Ram-e] notun gɦɒ r kinil-e]]]

Notice that the matrix CP is spelled out after the CNP clause has adjoined to the matrix vP. In other words, the CNP clause is part of the spelled-out domain and is, accordingly, part of the linearized structure. This explains why the CNP subject (or the matrix subject) suffers deletion. The conclusion can be summarized as follows. If the CNP clause merges at the matrix vP, it is spelled out and linearized with the matrix CP. Accordingly, Forward/Backward Control obtains. If the CNP clause merges at the matrix

136

Copy Adjunct Control: The analysis

CP instead, the matrix CP is spelled out and linearized independently. As a result, Copy Control obtains. One problem remains. By merging at CP, the CNP clause acquires a prolonged lifespan as a nonisland, which may result in the overgeneration of ungrammatical structures. The following section spells out the details and suggests a solution. 5. Adjunction to CP and unwanted sideward movement The CNP clause becomes an island only when it adjoins to the matrix clause. Prior to that, sideward movement out of the CNP clause is allowed. In Forward/Backward Control structures, the CNP clause adjoins to the matrix clause at vP right after the CNP subject undergoes sideward movement. Consider sentence (37), for example. As the derivation in (38) shows, Ram copies out of the CNP clause and merges in Spec,vP of the matrix clause, (38a), before the CNP clause adjoins to the matrix vP, (38b). After that, the CNP clause becomes an adjunct out of which movement is disallowed. (37)

[Ram-ei [Ram-ɒr bɦ ok [Ram-NOM [Ram-GEN hunger bɦ at khal-e] rice ate-3] ‘Having felt hungry, Ram ate rice.’

(38)

a. CNPP 3 SUBJ 6 Ram-ɒr

bɦok lag-i SIDEWARD MOVEMENT

lag-i] feel-CNP]

vP 3 SUBJ 6 Ram-e

bɦat khal-e

Adjunction to CP and unwanted sideward movement

b.

137

CP 3 IP C qp SUBJ I' Ram-e qp vP I qp CNPP vP 3 3 SUBJ 6 SUBJ 6 Ram-ɒr bɦok lag-i Ram-e bɦat khal-e

In Copy Control structures, on the other hand, the CNP clause adjoins to the matrix clause at CP. This means that the CNP clause is available for further instances of sideward movement that may overgenerate ungrammatical structures. Take the anomalous derivation in (39), for example. The derivation starts with the numeration in (39a). The CNP clause and the matrix vP form independently in (39b). Notice that Spec,vP of the matrix clause is already filled and that the thematic requirements of the matrix vP are satisfied. In other words, no sideward movement of Ram is necessary. When the matrix I0 projects in (39c), either Sarita in Spec,vP or Ram in the CNP clause must be able to occupy Spec,IP, especially since neither copy is closer to Spec,IP than the other. The CNP clause is not an island yet, so sideward movement may happen. Let us assume that it does, as demonstrated in (39d–e). Then, the CNP clause adjoins to the matrix clause at CP (39f). Ideally, the structure should converge as (40), contrary to expectation. (39)

a.

{Ram1, Sarita1, khɒ ŋ1, uth1, -i1, gusi1, gɔ l1, Tense1, Agr1} {Ram, Sarita, anger, raise, CNP, away, go,Tense, Agr}

b.

i.

[CNP [NP Ram-ɒ r] [vP [NP Ram-ɒ r] [CNP [NP Ram-GEN] [vP [NP Ram-GEN] uth-i]] khɒ ŋ anger raise-CNP]]

ii.

[Matrix vP [NP Sarita] [Matrix vP [NP Sarita.ABS]

gusi away

gɔ l] went]

138

(40)

Copy Adjunct Control: The analysis

c.

[Matrix IP [Matrix vP [NP Sarita] gusi gɔ l]]

d.

[NP Ram]

e.

[CP [Matrix IP [NP Ram] [Matrix vP [NP Sarita] gusi gɔ l]]]

f.

[CP [CNP [NP Ram-ɒ r] [vP [NP Ram-ɒ r] khɒ ŋ uth-i]] [CP [Matrix IP [NP Ram] [Matrix vP [NP Sarita] gusi gɔ l]]]]

*[Ram-ɒ ri [Ram-GEN Sarita Sarita.ABS

khɒ ŋ anger gusi away

uth-i] raise-CNP] gɔ l went

Ram Ram.ABS

The easy and quick answer concerning why (39) is not a possible derivation is that Ram, being an argument, has to merge in a thematic domain before it moves to the higher functional layers. Unfortunately, this answer does not do the trick because Ram has already merged in a thematic domain and taken on a theta-role by the time sideward movement takes place. This scenario is meant to point out that, under the current assumptions, sideward movement becomes so permissive that it overgenerates. In the old days, an argument would merge in a thematic position only if it had not taken on a theta-role yet. By the same token, it would be allowed to merge in a Case position only if it had not checked Case yet. Over the last decade or so, research has shown that an NP may take on more than one theta-role and more than one Case, two assumptions that are argued for on independent grounds (e.g., Bošković 1994; Bejar and Massam 1999). In this sense, movement allows an NP to copy-plus-merge just anywhere regardless of its Case and thematic characteristics. This is true of sideward as well as intraarboreal movement. Intra-arboreal movement seems to be less problematic, however. Such movement takes place within a single derivational workspace and always targets a higher c-commanding position. Under the current assumptions about multiple theta-roles and multiple Case checking, the landing site cannot be enforced by the feature characteristics of the moving element. Rather, it is enforced by the Extension Condition (Chomsky 1995: 248), which holds that merge extends the structure by applying at the root. Unlike intraclausal movement, sideward movement involves movement from one derivational workspace to another. Such movement does not involve a c-command relationship between the launching site and the landing

Adjunction to CP and unwanted sideward movement

139

site (Hornstein and Kiguchi 2001: 11). This means that neither the feature characteristics of the moving element nor the Extension Condition may restrict this kind of movement or dictate its landing site. The former is not restrictive under the view that an NP may bear multiple theta-roles and multiple Case. The latter is obeyed without resorting to c-command; in other words, a sideward-moving element targets the root of a particular structure, and thus extends the structure, without actually moving to a higher ccommanding position. As a solution, I suggest that sideward-moving elements undergo merge in the same way they undergo first merge. This idea is formulated in (41). (41)

The target of sideward movement a. If an element α targets a domain X when it undergoes first merge, α has to target X when it undergoes sideward movement. b. A domain X can be a thematic domain, a phi domain, or a discourse domain.

The restriction in (41) dictates that a sideward-moving element behave like an element selected from the numeration. For one thing, they both obey the Extension Condition and extend the structure without resorting to c-command. In other words, c-command relations are orthogonal to both. In (41), I suggest that sideward-moving elements and elements selected from the numeration also behave in the same way with respect to the locus of merge. 11 If (41) is on the right track, then the adjunction of the CNP clause to the matrix CP no longer overgenerates structures like (40). As an illustration, consider the derivation in (39), revisited in (42). The numeration in (42a) is selected from the lexicon. The CNP clause and the matrix clause form independently in (42b). As (42b–ii) shows, the matrix vP already has all its theta-roles satisfied, leaving no room for another argument to merge. By the time Ram copies out of the CNP clause (42c), the only landing site available for merge is Spec,IP, (42d). According to (41), Ram can only merge in a thematic position. The reason is that its first merge in the CNP clause also targets a thematic position. Merging in Spec,IP violates (41), which is why the derivation crashes. (42)

a.

{Ram1, Sarita1, khɒ ŋ1, uth1, -i1, gusi1, gɔ l1, Tense1, Agr1} {Ram, Sarita, anger, raise, CNP, away, go,Tense, Agr}

140

Copy Adjunct Control: The analysis

b.

i.

[CNP [NP Ram-ɒ r] [vP [NP Ram-ɒ r] [CNP [NP Ram-GEN] [vP [NP Ram-GEN] uth-i]] khɒ ŋ anger raise-CNP]]

ii.

[Matrix vP [NP Sarita] [Matrix vP [NP Sarita.ABS]

c.

[NP Ram]

d.

[Matrix IP [Matrix vP [NP Sarita] gusi gɔ l]]

gusi away

gɔ l] went]

Note that the sideward movement of Ram in (42c) is not optional. If it were optional, then given the numeration in (42a), (43) with disjoint subjects should be a possible outcome, but it is not. I address this issue of obligatory movement in detail in Chapter 6. See also Haddad 2010b. (43)

*[Ram-ɒ ri khɒ ŋ uth-i] [Ram-GEN anger raise-CNP] gusi gɔ l away went-3 ‘Ram having got angry, his wife left.’

tari his

gɦ oiniyak wife.ABS

Another point is in order. In principle, it is possible to satisfy the restriction in (41) by having Ram merge in the object position of the matrix clause since this position also belongs to the thematic domain. Yet Object Control structures like (44) are ungrammatical. (44)

[Ram-ɒ r dukh lag-i] Prɒ xad-e [Ram-GEN sad felt-CNP] Proxad-NOM phone koril-e phone did-3 ‘Ram having felt sad, Proxad called him.’

Ram-aloi Ram-DAT

Here I consider movement to take place as a last-resort, derivationsaving operation (or set of operations). To elaborate, the last available landing site in the matrix clause that the CNP subject may move to is the matrix Spec,vP. Since movement is not optional, the CNP subject moves once the matrix v0 projects because this is the last chance. If the CNP subject does not move to the matrix Spec,vP, it cannot move at all and the derivation

Phonological realization of copies

141

crashes. By the same token, if the CNP subject moves earlier, say to the object position, movement is no longer a last-resort, derivation-saving operation. The following section deals with the nature of the pronounced subjects in Copy Control constructions. It offers an explanation of why each of the subjects takes the form it does, that is, as an R-expression or a pronoun or an epithet. 6. Phonological realization of copies In Section 2, I ran a diagnosis to show that the phonological realization of the two subjects in Copy Control constructions is the result of movement rather than base-generated resumption. The conclusion was based on three mismatches between the characteristics of base-generated resumptive elements on the one hand and the behavior and type of overt subjects allowed in Copy Control structures on the other hand. First, base-generated resumptive pronominals show up in islands (adjuncts, NP clauses) that are immune to movement, and they show up all the time. Copy Control, on the other hand, is not restricted by the adjunctive nature of the CNP clause. Rather, it is restricted by the position of the CNP clause with respect to the matrix clause – that is, whether the CNP clause merges with the matrix clause at vP or CP. Second, resumptive elements are strictly pronominals (pronouns or epithets). Although the matrix subject in Copy Control structures may be a pronominal, it may also be realized as an R-expression that is a nondistinct copy of the CNP subject. Resumptive R-expressions can be straightforwardly accounted for if they are considered to be the outcome of movement, but not as straightforwardly if they are considered to be basegenerated. Third, resumptive pronominals only show up in subordinated domains that usually fail to function as launching sites for movement. When a pronominal subject is pronounced in a Copy Control construction, it shows up in the landing site: the matrix clause. This section is mainly concerned with the second and third points. We know for a fact that the matrix subject in Assamese Copy Control structures may be realized as a pronoun, an epithet, or an R-expression, and that it has to be coreferential with an R-expression in the subject position of the CNP clause. The section will try to answer the following questions:

142 



Copy Adjunct Control: The analysis

If Copy Control involves movement of the CNP subject out of the adjunct into the matrix clause, how can the two copies be phonologically distinct? In other words, what allows the matrix subject to be realized, not only as an R-expression, but also as either a pronoun or an epithet? Why does the CNP subject have to be an R-expression?

I begin by addressing the first question. 6.1. Movement and the PF realization of copies In this section, I will refer to pronouns and epithets that are residues of movement as PF pronominals. Aoun, Choueiri, and Hornstein (2001: 372, (3)) analyze PF pronominals (more specifically, strong pronouns and epithets) in Lebanese Arabic as appositives adjoined to R-expressions. The Rexpression moves, and the PF pronominal is stranded. This idea is illustrated in (45). (45)

R-expression . . . [DP R-expression [DP strong pronoun/epithet]]

Although slightly different from Aoun, Choueiri, and Hornstein’s, Boeckx’s (2003) approach leads to the same result. He analyzes resumption cross-linguistically. He holds that resumption involves a PF pronominal that merges as part of the DP containing the R-expression. When movement applies, only the R-expression undergoes movement, as (46) indicates. (46)

R-expression . . . [DP R-expression [D' [D PF pronominal]]]

Both approaches fail to account for Assamese Copy Control. Here is why. If Nunes’s argument that movement only takes place from a subordinated to a subordinating domain is on the right track, then the subject copies out of the CNP clause and merges into the matrix clause rather than the other way around. In this case, (45) and (46) predict that the R-expression in (47) must copy out of the CNP clause (47a) and merge into the matrix clause (47b). The stranded CNP copy must be a PF pronominal.

Phonological realization of copies

(47)

a.

[CNPP [DP R-expression [DP PF pronominal]] …]

b.

[Matrix vP [DP R-expression] …]

143

This prediction is incorrect, as (48) shows. In (48a), the subject has the structure proposed in (45)–(46). The R-expression copies out of the CNP clause (48a) and merges in the matrix clause (48b). The PF pronominal is stranded in the CNP clause. The outcome is the ungrammatical structure in (48c). The reason is that the CNP subject has to be an R-expression rather than a PF pronominal. (48)

a.

[CNPP [DP Ram-ɒ r [DP tar/besera-to-r]] …] [CNPP [DP Ram-GEN [DP he.GEN/poor guy-CL-GEN]] …]

b.

[Matrix vP [DP Ram] …]

c.

*[ta /besera-to-r khub [he.GEN/poor guy-CL-GEN very lag-i] Ram-e posa feel-CNP] Ram-NOM stale ‘The poor guy felt very hungry, and rice.’

bɦ ok hunger bɦ at khal-e rice ate-3 Ram -CL ate stale

Given that the CNP clause is realized first, it can be argued that linear order dictates that the R-expression should appear in the CNP clause. Accordingly, the computational system moves the PF pronominal to the matrix clause and strands the R-expression rather than the other way around, as illustrated in (49a–b). The result is the grammatical structure in (49c). (49)

a.

[CNPP [DP Ram-ɒ r [DP tar/besera-to-r]]…] [CNPP [DP Ram-GEN [DP he.GEN/poor guy-CL-GEN] ] …]

b.

[Matrix vP [DP xi/besera-to] …]

144

Copy Adjunct Control: The analysis

c.

[Ram-ɒ r khub bɦ ok lag-i] [Ram-GEN very hunger feel-CNP] xi/besera-to-e posa bɦ at khal-e he.NOM/poor guy-CL-NOM stale rice ate-3 ‘Ram felt very hungry, and he/the poor guy-CL ate stale rice.’

Sentence (49) is grammatical, which seems to suggest that the reverse stranding approach (the stranding of the R-expression instead of the pronoun) is on the right track. This is not the case, however. The stranding analysis still fails to account for the instances of Copy Control in which both copies are R-expressions, as illustrated in (50a). In order for (45) and (46) to be able to account for such structures, the CNP subject must start as an R-expression whose appositive (or adjunct) is an exact copy, as (50b) shows. Subsequently, one of the copies moves into the matrix clause and the other is stranded, (50c). (50)

a.

[Ram-ɒ r khub bɦ ok lag-i] [Ram-GEN very hunger feel-CNP] Ram-e posa bɦ at khal-e Ram-NOM stale rice ate-3 ‘Ram felt very hungry, and he ate stale rice.’

b.

[CNPP [DP Ram-ɒ r [DP Ram-ɒ r]] …]

c.

[Matrix vP [DP Ram] …]

Appositives may take the form of an epithet (or a strong pronoun), as (51a) illustrates. To the best of my knowledge, however, appositives that are exact copies of the expressions they attach to do not exist. At least in Assamese, such structures are unacceptable, as (51b) indicates. (51)

a.

xɒ mɒ i na-thak-i Ram gadɦ a-to-e time NEG-keep-CNP Ram donkey-CL-NOM na-khal-e bɦ at-o rice-even NEG-ate-3 ‘Ram, the idiot, didn’t have time and didn’t even eat rice.’

Phonological realization of copies

b.

145

*xɒ mɒ i na-thak-i Ram Ram-e time NEG-keep-CNP Ram Ram-NOM na-khal-e bɦ at-o rice-even NEG-ate-3 ‘Ram, Ram, didn’t have time and didn’t even eat rice.’

To account for the Assamese data, I adopt a nonstranding alternative of Aoun, Choueiri, and Hornstein’s (2001) and Boeckx’s (2003) approach. Instead of only copying a part of the CNP subject (e.g., the R-expression) and stranding the rest (e.g., the PF pronominal), I suggest that the whole CNP subject copy-plus-merges into the matrix clause, as (52) illustrates. See Haddad 2010a for a similar analysis of resumption in Telugu Copy Control. (52)

a.

[CNPP [DP Ram-ɒ r [DP tar/besera-to-r]] …] [CNPP [DP Ram-GEN [DP he.GEN/poor guy-CL-GEN] ] …]

b.

[Matrix vP [DP Ram [DP xi/besera-to]] …]

The outcome of (52) is (53), where both the CNP subject and the matrix subject comprise an R-expression with an appositive. At PF, the CNP subject is pronounced as an R-expression for reasons to be discussed in the following section. Further, the phonological component decides how the matrix subject is pronounced. Three options are available: an R-expression, a pronoun, or an epithet. (53)

[[Ram-ɒ r [ta /besera-to-r]] khub bɦ ok [[Ram-GEN [he.GEN/poor guy-CL-GEN]] very hunger lag-i] [Ram-e [xi / besera-to-e]] feel-CNP] [Ram-NOM [he.NOM/poor guy-CL-NOM]] posa bɦ at khal-e stale rice ate-3 ‘Ram felt very hungry, and he/the poor guy ate stale rice.’

The discussion thus far explains why the matrix subject may take the forms it does. Now the question is: Why does the CNP subject have to be an R-expression? Why can it not be realized as a pronoun or an epithet as well? The following section presents a possible answer.

146

Copy Adjunct Control: The analysis

6.2. Lack of cataphoricity and the nature of the CNP subject Recall from Section 3 that Copy Control structures involve a CNP clause that is adjoined to the matrix clause at CP, resulting in two subjects in a non-c-command relationship. This idea is illustrated in (54). Lack of ccommand implies that whatever enforces an R-expression in the CNP clause and allows a PF pronominal in the matrix clause is unlikely to be Condition C. This is certainly a desirable conclusion. Here is why. If we consider (55a) ungrammatical owing to a Condition C violation, then we must find a way to explain why (55b) is grammatical despite a Condition C violation. According to Condition C, an R-expression is simply free (Chomsky 1986b: 164–165). That is, it cannot be bound by any element; this includes a PF pronominal, as well as another R-expression. (54)

(55)

CP qp CNP CP 3 3 SUBJ 6 IP C … 3 SUBJ 6 … a.

*[tar Prɒ xad-ɒ r oporot khɒ ŋ [he.GEN Proxad-GEN on anger uth-i] Ram-e tar lɒ gɒ t raise-CNP] Ram-NOM him with kaziya kɔ ril-e fight did-3 ‘Having got angry with Proxad, Ram had a fight with him.’

b.

[Ram-ɒ r Prɒ xad-ɒ r oporot khɒ ŋ [Ram-GEN Proxad-GEN on anger uth-i] Ram-e tar lɒ gɒ t kaziya kɔ ril-e raise-CNP] Ram-NOM him with fight did-3 ‘Having got angry with Proxad, Ram had a fight with him.’

It is worth noting that the same observation applies to the object NPs in (55b). The CNP object is an R-expression and the matrix object is a pro-

Phonological realization of copies

147

noun. Obviously, the former does not c-command the latter. Yet if the CNP subject is a pronoun and the matrix subject is an R-expression, as (56a) exemplifies, the result is ungrammaticality under the designated reading. By the same token, both object NPs can be coreferential R-expressions without inducing a violation, (56b). (56)

a.

*[tari oporot khɒ ŋ uth-i] Ram-e [him on anger raise-CNP] Ram-NOM Prɒ xad-ɒ ri lɒ gɒ t kaziya kɔ ril-e Proxad.GEN with fight did-3 ‘Having got angry with him, Ram had a fight with Proxad.’

b.

[Prɒ xad-ɒ r oporot khɒ ŋ uth-i] [Proxad-GEN on anger raise-CNP] lɒ gɒ t kaziya kɔ ril-e Ram-e Prɒ xad-ɒ r Ram-NOM Proxad-GEN with fight did-3 ‘Having got angry with Proxad, Ram had a fight with him.’

The examples in (56) indicate that the Case of the subject NPs in Assamese Copy Control is not control-related. Rather, it follows from a more ubiquitous restriction on cataphoricity. Unlike English and similar languages, Assamese lacks cataphoricity. Each of the sentences in (57)–(58) involves an R-expression and a pronominal that are not in a c-command relationship. In the (a) sentences, the R-expression linearly precedes the pronominal. The sentences are grammatical. In the (b) sentences, the pronominal linearly precedes the R-expression. The sentences are ungrammatical under the designated reading. Notice that the English equivalents are considered acceptable, at least by some speakers. I suggest that lack of cataphoricity also disallows Copy Control structures with a PF pronominal linearly preceding a coreferential R-expression. (57)

a.

lora-sowali-bur-ei sow-a sinima-khɒ n-e boy-girl-CL-NOM see-INF movie-CL-NOM tahat-ɒ ki bɦɒ e khwal-e them-ACC fear made-3 ‘The movie that the children saw frightened them.’

148

(58)

Copy Adjunct Control: The analysis

b.

*tahat-ei sow-a sinima-khɒ n-e they-NOM see-INF movie-CL-NOM bɦɒ e khwal-e lora-sowali-bur-ɒ ki boy-girl-CL-ACC fear made-3 ‘The movie that they saw frightened the children.’

a.

moy lora-sowali-bur-ɒ ki kali dekhil-o I.NOM boy-girl-CL-ACC yesterday saw-1 tahat-ei tetiya kheli asil they-NOM at the time play were ‘I saw the children yesterday and they were playing.’

b.

*moy tahat-ɒ ki kali dekhil-o I.NOM them-ACC yesterday saw-1 tetiya kheli asil lora-sowali-bur-ei boy-girl-CL-NOM at the time play were ‘I saw them yesterday and the children were playing.’

The discussion deals with cataphoricity, or the lack thereof, as a PF requirement. This follows from the assumption that cataphora constraints are linear order restrictions and that linear order is encoded on the phonological side of the computation (Chomsky 1995). One final point before I conclude. The CNP subject in Assamese Copy Control structures has to be an R-expression. It cannot be a pronominal, even if the matrix subject is itself a pronominal. This is exemplified in the ungrammaticality of (59). (59)

*[tar khub bɦ ok lag-i] [he.GEN very hunger feel-CNP] posa bɦ at khal-e stale rice ate-3 ‘He felt very hungry, and he ate stale rice.’

xi he.NOM

The ungrammaticality of (59) is more likely to be a language-specific phenomenon. Sentences (60)–(61) from Dakkhini and Karnataka Konkani suggest that other languages of South Asia might not have this restriction (Arora and Subbarao 2004: 40, (80)–(81)). In addition, Telugu Copy Control allows a pronominal in the CNP clause as long as both the CNP and matrix pronouns take on emphatic markers, (62a–b).

Phonological realization of copies

(60)

(61)

(62)

Dakkhini [us-ku bukhaar aa-ke] [he-DAT fever come-CNP] ‘Having had a fever, he died.’

uno he.NOM

Karnataka Konkani [tak-ka taap yewa-nu] [he-DAT fever come-CNP] ‘Having had a fever, he died.’

tO he

149

mar.gayaa died

gellO died

Telugu (Subbarao, p.c. in Haddad 2010a) a. [vaad(u)-ee andari-ki cepp-i] [he.HON.NOM-EMPH all-DAT tell-CNP] vaad(u)-ee ceppa-leedu ani he.HON.NOM-EMPH tell-NEG COMP antunnaa-du said-3.M.S ‘He himself having said this, he himself said that he didn’t say it.’ b.

[aame-ee tana pillala-ki [she.NOM-EMPH self’s children-DAT abaddaalu cepp-i] aame-ee lies tell-CNP] she.NOM-EMPH tana pillala-ni paadu ceesin-di self’s children-ACC spoil did-3.N.S ‘She herself having told lies to her children, she herself ruined her children.’

From the above discussion, we can conclude that the form of the subject, R-expression vs. PF pronominal, in Copy Control structures follows from language-specific factors of cataphoricity and economy rather than from the nature of the derivation or the nature of movement. If this conclusion is correct, then movement – or the operations it comprises – becomes a more straightforward operation relieved of the burden of stranding.

150

Copy Adjunct Control: The analysis

7. Conclusion This chapter provided an analysis of Copy Control into CNP clauses in Assamese. It showed that Copy Control is derivationally similar to Forward and Backward Control except for one step. Whereas the CNP clause in Forward and Backward Control merges at vP of the matrix clause, in Copy Control it merges at CP. To account for the Assamese data, the analysis brought about a change to Nunes’s (2004) system. Building on work by Fujii (2005) and Uriagereka (1999), among others, I suggested that linearization takes place phase by phase. As a result, the matrix clause, being a phase, is spelled out, linearized, and transformed into a phonological word prior to the adjunction of the CNP clause. After adjunction, linearization cannot detect the CNP subject and the matrix subject as nondistinct copies of the same token. The reason is that the matrix subject is now part of a bigger word, the spelled-out domain of the matrix clause. Consequently, two subjects escape deletion, resulting in Copy Control. Finally, the chapter introduced a nonstranding alternative to Aoun, Choueiri, and Hornstein’s (2001) and Boeckx’s (2003) analysis of resumptive pronominals that result from movement. The authors argue that a resumptive element is part of an R-expression’s first merge. Subsequently, the R-expression moves, and the resumptive element is stranded. I agree with the idea that the resumptive element and the R-expression undergo their first merge as one phrasal structure. Nevertheless, the Assamese data suggest that not only the R-expression but in fact the whole phrasal structure copies and merges in the subordinating domain. Decisions concerning which part to pronounce, the R-expression or the resumptive element, are made at PF. Lack of cataphoricity in Assamese – plus other languagespecific restrictions – forces the CNP subject to be realized as an Rexpression while the matrix subject is allowed to take on one of three forms: a pronoun, an epithet, or an R-expression.

Chapter 5 Adjunct Control violations as Expletive Control

1. Introduction Chapters 3 and 4 presented an analysis of Assamese Adjunct Control structures in which Obligatory Control obtains all the time. Exceptions do exist, however. These are structures that pattern the same as Adjunct Control structures (i.e., they involve a matrix clause and a CNP clause), yet they allow disjoint subjects. Sentences (1)–(7) are examples. (1)

[e-ta gɦɒ r-ot zui [one-CL house-LOC fire.ABS mɔ ril boɦ ut manuɦ many people.ABS died. ‘A house burned and many people died.’

(2)

[dɦ umuɦ a aɦ -i] boɦ ut gos [storm.ABS come-CNP] many trees.ABS ‘A storm came and many trees got broken.’

(3)

[Shimla-t boroph por-i] Delɦ i-t [Simla-LOC snow.ABS fall-CNP] Delhi-LOC thanda poril cold.ABS fell ‘The snow having fallen in Simla, it became cold in Delhi.’

(4)

[botah bol-i] kagoz but [wind.ABS blow-CNP] sheets of paper.ABS gɔ l went ‘The wind blew and the sheets of paper flew away.’

(5)

[borokhum por-i] kheti [rain.ABS fall-CNP] plants.ABS ‘The rain having fallen, the crop grew.’

lag-i] happen-CNP]

barɦ il grow

bɦ angil broke

noli fly

152

Adjunct Control violations as Expletive Control

(6)

[wall bɦ aŋ-i] xilguti [wall.ABS destroy-CNP] stones.ABS ‘The wall having collapsed, stones fell.’

poril fell

(7)

[sɔ ki-khɒ n bɦ aŋ-i] Ram [chair-CL.ABS destroy-CNP] Ram.ABS ‘The chair broke and Ram fell off.’

poril fell

The main purpose of this chapter is to show that these structures may be analyzed as instances of Obligatory Control – more specifically, Obligatory Expletive Control – and that they do not present a challenge to the analysis of Adjunct Control offered in the previous chapters. Before we proceed, it is important to note that the phenomenon is not unique to Assamese. As the following examples show, similar structures are allowed in Marathi (Pandharipande 1997: 446, (1277)), Tamil (Lindholm 1975: 81, (3.38); 33, (2.22)), Hindi (Davison 1981: 122, fn. 5 (i)–(ii)), Bengali (Klaiman 1981: 111–114, (4.53b) and (4.57e)), and Telugu (Haddad 2009b, (10a–b)), among other (South Asian) languages. (8)

(9)

Marathi [paauus paD-uun] dhaanya [rain fall-CNP] crops ‘The rain having fallen, the crop grew.’

Tamil a. [maze penj-u] aatu-le taNNi ooduccu [rain fall-CNP] river-LOC water ran ‘It rained and water flowed in the river.’ b.

(10)

pikl-a grew-3.N.S

[panangaaDu muDinj-u] oru paade [palmyra forest finish-CNP] one path tooNuccu appeared ‘The palmyra forest ended, and a path appeared.’

Hindi a. [Diwaar gir-kar] patthar gir [wall fall-CNP] stones fall ‘The wall having fallen, stones fell.’

gaee went

Introduction

b.

(11)

(12)

[baaN (hiraN-koo) lag-kar] hiraN mar [arrow (deer-ACC) strike-CNP] deer die gayaa went ‘The arrow having struck (the deer), the deer died.’

Bengali a. [ceaar bheNge giy-e] [chair break down-CNP] pore gaelo fell down ‘The chair broke and Modhu fell off.’ b.

153

Modhu Modhu

[ottodhik baroph pof-e] samosto [excessive snow fall-CNP] entire sosso nasfo hoye giyeche crop ruined has become ‘Heavy snow having fallen, all the crops have been destroyed.’

Telugu a. [tufaanu wacc-i] naa illu [flood come-CNP] my house.NOM kuulin-di collapsed-3.N.S ‘The flood came, and my house collapsed.’ b.

[Simla-loo mancu paD-i] Dhillii-loo [Simla-LOC snow fall-CNP] Delhi-LOC calla paDin-di cool became-3.N.S ‘The snow fell in Simla, and it became cool in Delhi.’

Pandharipande, Lindholm, and Klaiman analyze the phenomenon and attribute it purely to semantic factors without any reference to syntax. Pandharipande (1997: 445–446) briefly indicates that such structures are allowed when there is a cause-effect relationship between the CNP clause and the matrix clause. In this case, “the agents of the matrix and the participial [CNP] clauses can be different.” Similarly, Lindholm (1975) attributes the occurrence in part to a cause-effect relation between the ma-

154

Adjunct Control violations as Expletive Control

trix and the subordinate clauses, and he adds another factor that he calls “natural relevance.” According to natural relevance, it is not enough to have a cause-effect relation between the CNP and matrix clauses; the relations must also follow naturally. For example, the CNP and matrix clauses in (13) exhibit a cause-effect relation, but the sentence is ungrammatical because the relation lacks natural relevance (Lindholm 1975: 80, (3.37)). Compare (13) with (9), where the relation between rain and the flowing of the river is a cause-effect relation that is naturally relevant (Lindholm 1975: 75–83). (13)

Tamil *[maze penj-u] kaDe-le ellaam [rain fall-CNP] shop-LOC all koDe vittu pooccu umbrella sell went ‘It rained and umbrellas got sold out at all the shops.’

Lindholm’s analysis becomes problematic when examined in the light of (14)–(15). Sentences (14a–b) display a cause-effect relation between two incidents that – arguably – are “naturally relevant”; as expected, both sentences are grammatical. If this analysis is correct, the expectation is that (15a–c) should be grammatical as well since they relate two incidents that are “naturally relevant.” The only difference is that at least one predicate in each of (15a–c) involves an agent, which is apparently why the sentences are ungrammatical. (14)

a.

[e-ta gɦɒ r-ot zui lag-i] [one-CL house-LOC fire.ABS happen-CNP] boɦ ut manuɦ mɔ ril many people.ABS died ‘A house burned and many people died.’

b.

[bahirat thanda por-i] gɦɒ r-ot [outside cold fall-CNP] house-LOC thanda ɦɔ l cold became ‘It having become cold outside, it became cold in the house.’

Introduction

(15)

a.

*[Ram-e gɦɒ r-to-t [Ram-NOM house-CL-LOC laga-i] boɦ ut manuɦ cause to happen-CNP] many people.ABS ‘Ram burned the house; many people died.’

b.

*[e-ta gɦɒ r-ot zui lag-i] [one-CL house-LOC fire happen-CNP] boɦ ut manuɦ -e police-aloi phone kɔ ril-e many people.NOM police-DAT phone did-3 ‘A house burned and many people called the police.’

c.

*[baɦ irat thanda por-i] Ram-e [outside cold fall-CNP] Ram-NOM jacket pindɦ il-e jacket wore-3 ‘It having become cold outside, Ram put on a jacket.’

155

zui fire mɔ ril died

Klaiman’s (1981) analysis is a possible solution to the problem in (14)–(15). She holds that structures like (14a–b) are allowed only when both the CNP and the matrix clauses express a nonvolitional activity. If one of the clauses expresses a volitional activity, disjoint subjects result in ungrammaticality. In each of (15a–c), the CNP or matrix clause expresses a volitional activity. This seems to be the reason why the sentences are unacceptable. Klaiman provides a semantic analysis. She explicitly rules out syntax and the possibility that “any existing theoretical model can handle the facts” (1981: 126). Nevertheless, as I suggest in Haddad 2009b for Telugu, her analysis may be converted into a syntactic account that places the Assamese exceptions in the category of nonexceptions. The following sections show that what appears to be a violation of the Same Subject Condition is not a violation. Section 2 reformulates Klaiman’s volitional/ nonvolitional distinction as accusative/unaccusative. Section 3 suggests that the structures in (1)–(7) are instances of Expletive Control that are possible only when the CNP and matrix predicates are both unaccusative. A challenge to this proposal comes from English, which does not allow similar patterns of Expletive Control. Section 4 provides an explanation. Section 5 concludes the chapter.

156

Adjunct Control violations as Expletive Control

2. Nonvolitional as unaccusative I suggest that Klaiman’s “nonvolitional activities” correspond in the syntax to unaccusative structures. Each of the grammatical sentences in (1)–(7) contains two unaccusative predicates, one in the CNP clause and one in the matrix clause. By comparison, the ungrammatical structures in (15) contain at least one clause that is not unaccusative.1 The standard assumption is that unaccusative structures license themes that are base-generated low in the structure. Themes, along with goals and patients, are considered the lowest of all arguments. They are generated below causers, which in turn are generated below experiencers (Landau 2001: 120; 2009 and works cited therein). This implies that the nonvolitional subjects in (1)–(7) are themes that are generated low in the structure, probably as complements of V0. Evidence that the unaccusative predicates under investigation contain themes that are realized low in the structure, probably in the locus of their first merge, comes from structures that contain an unaccusative predicate and a locative expression. Although Assamese is a SOV language, with the subject canonically occupying a sentence-initial position, (16a), if an unaccusative predicate is involved, the unmarked situation is for the locative expression to be realized sentence-initially, (16b–c). The reason is that locative expressions are generated higher than themes (Grimshaw 1990: 24). At the same time, because of the free word order in Assamese, it is possible to have unaccusative structures with a sentence-initial theme followed by a locative expression, (16d–e). (16)

a.

Ram-e gɦɒ r-to-t Ram-NOM house-CL-LOC lagal-e caused to happen-3 ‘Ram burned the house.’

b.

prithibi-t xanti world-LOC peace.ABS ‘Peace came to the world.’

c.

Guwahati-t boɦ ut gos Guwahati-LOC many trees.ABS ‘In Guwahati many trees broke.’

zui fire

aɦ il came bɦ angil broke

Unaccusative predicates and Expletive Control

157

aɦ il came

d.

xanti prithibi-t peace.ABS world-LOC ‘Peace came to the world.’

e.

boɦ ut gos Guwahati-t many trees.ABS Guwahati-LOC ‘In Guwahati many trees broke.’

bɦ angil broke

This observation extends to the structures in (1)–(7), as (17)–(18) illustrate. (17)

(18)

[e-ta gɦɒ r-ot zui [one-CL house-LOC fire.ABS boɦ ut manuɦ mɔ ril many people.ABS died ‘A house burned and many people died.’

lag-i] happen-CNP]

aɦ -i] [Florida-t dɦ umuɦ a [Florida-LOC storm.ABS come-CNP] boɦ ut gos bɦ angil many trees.ABS broke ‘A storm hit Florida and many trees got broken.’

The following section shows how accusativity is relevant to control. 3. Unaccusative predicates and Expletive Control I consider structures that involve unaccusative predicates in the CNP and matrix clauses as having null expletives as subjects. In other words, sentences (1)–(7) have the structure in (19)–(25), with the subject positions in each sentence being occupied with proEXP. (19)

[proEXP e-ta gɦɒ r-ot zui lag-i] [proEXP one-CL house-LOC fire.ABS happen-CNP] boɦ ut manuɦ mɔ ril proEXP proEXP many people.ABS died ‘A house burned and many people died.’

158

Adjunct Control violations as Expletive Control

(20)

[proEXP dɦ umuɦ a aɦ -i] [proEXP storm.ABS come-CNP] boɦ ut gos bɦ angil proEXP proEXP many trees.ABS broke ‘A storm came and many trees got broken.’

(21)

[proEXP Shimla-t boroph por-i] [proEXP Simla-LOC snow.ABS fall-CNP] proEXP Delɦ i-t thanda poril proEXP Delhi-LOC cold.ABS fell ‘The snow having fallen in Simla, it became cold in Delhi.’

(22)

[proEXP botah bol-i] [proEXP wind.ABS blow-CNP] kagoz but noli gɔ l proEXP proEXP sheets of paper.ABS fly went ‘The wind blew, and the sheets of paper flew away.’

(23)

[proEXP borokhum por-i] [proEXP rain.ABS fall-CNP] kheti barɦ il proEXP proEXP plants.ABS grow ‘The rain having fallen, the crop grew.’

(24)

[proEXP wall bɦ aŋ-i] [proEXP wall.ABS destroy-CNP] xilguti poril proEXP proEXP stones.ABS fell ‘The wall having collapsed, stones fell.’

(25)

[proEXP sɔ ki-khɒ n bɦ aŋ-i] [proEXP chair-CL.ABS destroy-CNP] proEXP Ram poril proEXP Ram.ABS fell ‘The chair broke and Ram fell off.’

The structures in (19)–(25) are based on the assumption that the theme maintains its position low in the clause, allowing an expletive to fill the subject position. The expletive is null because Assamese does not have overt expletives, as sentences (26a–e) suggest (from Jansen 2004: (23),

Unaccusative predicates and Expletive Control

159

(75), (89), (110), and (175)). If an overt pronominal is used as an expletive, the sentences become ungrammatical, (27a–e).2 (26)

(27)

a.

gɦɒ riyal hati xap proEXP proEXP crocodile elephant snake aru goru as-e and cow are-3 ‘There are crocodiles, elephants, snakes, and cows.’

b.

proEXP xei dex-at bɦ ekuli proEXP that country-LOC frog dzura eta as-e pair one was-3 ‘There was a pair of frogs in that country.’

c.

proEXP Sita nam-ɒ r e-dzoni proEXP Sita name-GEN one-CL.F asil-e moɦ ila woman was-3 ‘There was a sad woman named Sita.’

dukhi sad

d.

proEXP gos-at moumakhi-r bah proEXP tree-LOC honeybee-GEN nest ‘There was a beehive in the tree.’

asil-e was-3

e.

proEXP thanda cold proEXP ‘It became cold.’

a.

*xi/tai gɦɒ riyal hati xap he/she.NOM crocodile elephant snake aru goru as-e and cow are-3 ‘There are crocodiles, elephants, snakes, and cows.’

b.

*xi/tai xei dex-at bɦ ekuli he/she.NOM that country-LOC frog dzura eta as-e pair one was-3 ‘There was a pair of frogs in that country.’

hɔ l became

160

Adjunct Control violations as Expletive Control

c.

*xi/tai Sita nam-ɒ r he/she.NOM Sita name-GEN asil-e dukhi moɦ ila sad woman was-3 ‘There was a sad woman named Sita.’

d.

*xi/tai gos-at moumakhi-r he/she.NOM tree-LOC honeybee-GEN bah asil-e nest was-3 ‘There was a beehive in the tree.’

e.

xi/tai thanda hɔ l he/she.NOM cold became ‘He/She (a person) became cold.’ *‘It (the weather) became cold.’

e-dzoni one-CL.F

In addition, I consider the apparent exceptions in (19)–(25) as instances of Expletive Control with the subordinate and the matrix null expletives as copies of the same token. In other words, I consider the structures to have a derivational history that is similar to the more common instances of Adjunct Control analyzed in the previous chapters, except for one major difference: whereas the two nondistinct subjects in the more common Adjunct Control structures are copies of the same argument, the nondistinct subjects in Expletive Control structures are copies of the same expletive. For example, structure (28a) has the derivational history presented in (28b). The CNP clause and the matrix clause form independently. Notice that the thematic domain in both clauses is an unaccusative VP. The subject of the CNP clause, proEXP , undergoes sideward movement. It copies out of the CNP clause and merges in Spec,IP of the matrix clause. Then, the CNP clause adjoins to the matrix clause at VP (or CP) and the structure converges as (28c). (28)

a.

[dɦ umuɦ a aɦ -i] boɦ ut gos [storm.ABS come-CNP] many trees.ABS bɦ angil broke ‘A storm came and many trees got broken.’

Unaccusative predicates and Expletive Control

161

b. CNPP 3 SUBJ VP proEXP 6 dɦumuɦa aɦ-i SIDEWARD MOVEMENT

IP qy I' SUBJ proEXP ty VP I 6 boɦut gos bɦangil

c.

CP qp IP C qp SUBJ I' proEXP qp VP I qp CNPP VP 3 6 SUBJ VP boɦut gos bɦangil proEXP 6 dɦumuɦa aɦ-i Recall that (28a) and, thus, the derivation in (28b–c) are only possible if both predicates are unaccusative. If the CNP predicate or the matrix predicate is not unaccusative, the result is ungrammaticality, as the examples in (15) illustrate. Here is why. Observe sentence (29a). The CNP predicate is transitive, with Ram as an external argument/subject. The subject has to move to the matrix clause. As (29b) shows, by the time Ram undergoes sideward movement, the only available position is Spec,IP. This is not an appropriate landing site for the argument Ram for reasons to be specified in the following section. The movement of the CNP subject is not optional, however, as we will see in Chapter 6. In this case, sideward movement fails to take place. Consequently, the structure does not converge. Note that the structure would converge if the CNP subject merges in the theme position in the matrix clause, as (29c) shows. The result is (29d).

162

Adjunct Control violations as Expletive Control

(29)

a.

*[Ram-e gɦɒ r-to-t zui [Ram-NOM house-CL-LOC fire laga-i] boɦ ut manuɦ cause to happen-CNP] many people.ABS ‘Ram burned the house; many people died.’

mɔ ril died

b. CNPP 3 SUBJ vP Ram-e 6 gɦɒr-to-t zui laga-i SIDEWARD MOVEMENT

IP qy SUBJ I' 2 VP I wo THEME V boɦut manuɦ mɔril

c. CNPP 3 SUBJ vP Ram-e 6

VP wo THEME V Ram mɔril

gɦɒr-to-t zui laga-i SIDEWARD MOVEMENT

d.

[Ram-e gɦɒ r-to-t [Ram-NOM house-CL-LOC laga-i] Ram cause to happen-CNP] Ram.ABS ‘Ram burned the house, and Ram died.’

zui fire mɔ ril died

Conversely, if the matrix predicate is transitive (or unergative) while the CNP predicate is unaccusative, as exemplified in (30a), the null expletive proEXP in the CNP clause undergoes sideward movement to Spec,IP of the matrix clause, as (30b) illustrates. Yet the derivation crashes. It suffices to say – or stipulate – that Assamese does not allow transitive expletive constructions of the type attested in Icelandic. In this sense, the argument in Spec,vP of the matrix clause has the “right of way” to Spec,IP. This is why

Unaccusative predicates and Expletive Control

163

the sideward movement of the CNP expletive does not lead to a convergent derivation. (30)

a.

*[proEXP e-ta gɦɒ r-ot zui lag-i] [proEXP one-CL house-LOC fire happen-CNP] police-aloi phone kɔ ril-e boɦ ut manuɦ -e many people.NOM police-DAT phone did-3 ‘A house burned and many people called the police.’

b. CNPP 3 SUBJ 6 proEXP eta gɦɒr-ot zui lag-i SIDEWARD MOVEMENT

IP qy SUBJ I' 2 vP I 3 SUBJ VP boɦut manuɦ-e6 police-aloi phone kɔril-e

The derivational history of the Expletive Control structure in (28) differs from that of the control structures analyzed in Chapters 2 and 3 in two additional ways. These are related to the landing site of proEXP and to the late merge of the CNP clause. Sections 3.1 and 3.2 lay out the details. 3.1. Adjunct Control and the target of sideward movement Consider the Forward Control structure in (31a). As (31b) shows, when the CNP subject undergoes sideward movement, it copies out of the CNP clause and merges in the matrix Spec,vP. Compare this example with (28b), where the CNP subject merges in Spec,IP of the matrix clause. (31)

a.

[Ram-ɒ r bɦ agɔ r lag-i] [Ram-GEN exhaustion feel-CNP] xui thakil sleep kept ‘Having felt exhausted, Ram fell asleep.’

Ram Ram.ABS

164

Adjunct Control violations as Expletive Control

b. CNPP 3 SUBJ 6 Ram-ɒr

bɦagɔr lag-i

vP 3 SUBJ 6 Ram xui thakil

SIDEWARD MOVEMENT

This difference between (31) and (28) should not be a problem if the restriction on the landing site of sideward-moving elements formulated in (32), repeated from Chapter 4, is correct. In (28), the CNP subject proEXP undergoes first merge in a phi position. According to (32), when proEXP undergoes sideward movement, it should land in the same position, which it does. Compare (28) with (31), in which the CNP subject undergoes first merge in a thematic position. When it undergoes sideward movement, its landing site is a thematic position. (32)

The target of sideward movement a. If an element α targets a position X when it undergoes first merge, α has to target X when it undergoes sideward movement. b. A position X can be a thematic position, a phi position, or a discourse position.

The restriction is built on the following assumption. When an element moves intra-arboreally, it has to copy out of its position and merge in a higher c-commanding landing site that is a root (i.e., a landing site that is ccommanded by no other node). This is in accordance with the Extension Condition, which holds that “merge applies at the root only” for the purpose of extending the structure (Chomsky 1995: 248). When an element undergoes sideward movement, however, it obeys the Extension Condition without having to merge in a c-commanding position. As a matter of fact, it cannot merge in a c-commanding position. Rather, the sideward-moving element makes itself available in the computational workspace in the same way that an element in the numeration is available in the computational workspace. I assume that it undergoes merge in the same way an element selected from the numeration undergoes merge. That is, they both target the same locus.

Unaccusative predicates and Expletive Control

165

The principle in (32) also explains why sentence (33) is not a possible structure. As an argument, the subordinate subject Ram undergoes first merge in a thematic position. According to (32), it must also target a thematic position when it undergoes sideward movement. However, the thematic position is already occupied with boɦ ut manuɦ ‘many people’; matrix Spec,IP is a phi position, which is why it is not an appropriate landing site for Ram. (33)

a.

b.

*[Ram-e gɦɒ r-to-t [Ram-NOM house-CL-LOC laga-i] boɦ ut manuɦ cause to happen-CNP] many people.ABS ‘Ram burned the house; many people died.’ CNPP 3 SUBJ vP Ram-e 6

gɦɒr-to-t zui laga-i SIDEWARD MOVEMENT

zui fire mɔ ril died

IP qu SUBJ I' 3 VP I wo THEME V boɦut manuɦ mɔril

Note that Case and theta-role cannot account for the ungrammaticality of (33a). As I explained in Chapter 4, by the time the subordinate subject undergoes sideward movement, it has already taken on Case and a thetarole. Therefore, it has a need for neither. At the same time, under the view that multiple Case checking and multiple theta-roles are possible, either Spec,vP/VP or Spec,IP of the matrix clause must be an appropriate landing site for the sideward-moving subject. Yet only the former leads to a convergent structure. The restriction in (33) is able to explain why this is so. The following section deals with the issue of late merge that is brought on by Expletive Control.

166

Adjunct Control violations as Expletive Control

3.2. Expletive Control and cyclic merge The operation merge may be divided into cyclic merge and late merge. Cyclic merge obeys the Extension Condition in that it applies at the root of the structure, extending it and forming a new category. For example, consider the structure M in (34). If there is an object α that needs to undergo cyclic merge with M, merge can only apply to Xmax because this is the only category that is not c-commanded by any other category. After merge applies, the structure is extended, yielding a new syntactic object L, such that L = {α, {α, M}}, as (35) shows. (34)

M= X

(35)

L=

Xmax 3

Ymax 3

Y Z αmax 3 α Xmax 3 X Ymax 3 Y Z

What if an element β undergoes merge with Ymax in (34), resulting in the structure in (36)? Since Ymax is not a root (i.e., it is c-commanded by another category X), such an instance of merge is considered as counter-cyclic merge, also known as late merge. (36)

M=

Xmax 3 X Ymax 3 β Ymax 3

The Adjunct Control structures examined in the previous chapters only involve cyclic merge in the sense that all merge, including the merge of the CNP clause with the matrix clause, applies to the root. Expletive Control, on the other hand, may involve late merge. Consider (37), for instance. By

Unaccusative predicates and Expletive Control

167

the time the CNP subject undergoes sideward movement in (37b), the matrix clause has already projected as high as IP. Then, the CNP clause either adjoins to the matrix clause at VP (37c) or waits till the matrix C0 projects and merges at CP (37d). The latter scenario is not a problem since no late merge is involved. In (37c), however, VP is no longer a root because it is dominated by IP. That is, the CNP clause undergoes late merge. (37)

a.

[dɦ umuɦ a aɦ -i] boɦ ut gos [storm.ABS come-CNP] many trees.ABS bɦ angil broke ‘A storm came and many trees got broken.’

b. CNPP 3 SUBJ VP proEXP 6 dɦumuɦa aɦ-i SIDEWARD MOVEMENT

c.

IP qu I' SUBJ proEXP 3 VP I 6 boɦut gos bɦangil

IP qp SUBJ I' proEXP qp VP I qp CNPP VP 3 6 SUBJ VP boɦut gos bɦangil proEXP 6 dɦumuɦa aɦ-i

168

Adjunct Control violations as Expletive Control

d.

CP qp CNPP CP 3 3 SUBJ VP IP proEXP 6 3 dɦumuɦa aɦ-i SUBJ I' proEXP 3 VP I 6 boɦut gos bɦangil

A way out of this dilemma is to assume that the CNP clause in Expletive Control structures can only undergo merge at CP of the matrix clause in order to avoid late merge, and that (36d) is the only possible derivation. In this respect, Expletive Control structures will be similar to the Copy Control structures analyzed in Chapter 4. It is worth noting that despite the similarity between Copy and Expletive Control in terms of the merging site of the CNP clause, one crucial difference holds. In Copy Control, the matrix clause has to be spelled out and freeze for all further syntactic operations prior to the merging of the CNP clause. In this way, the matrix subject becomes invisible for the purpose of linearization at PF; therefore, no precedence relation is detected, and the structure converges. In Expletive Control, on the other hand, the control copies are unpronounced expletives. These copies may not be detected at PF because they do not have phonological content. Thus, the spell-out of the matrix clause prior to the merge of the CNP clause becomes orthogonal. This explains why (37) may also be realized as (38), with boɦ ut gos ‘many trees’ scrambled past the adjunct to sentence-initial position. Given that the matrix clause may be spelled out after, rather than before, the adjunction of the CNP clause, scrambling out of the matrix clause to a sentence-initial position is possible, albeit marked. The same is not possible with the Copy Control structure (39a), as (39b) illustrates. The scrambling of bɦ at ‘rice’ past the adjunct results in ungrammaticality. The reason is that the matrix IP is already a frozen compound that is opaque to all movement by the time the CNP clause adjoins to the matrix CP. (38)

boɦ ut gos [dɦ umuɦ a aɦ -i] many trees.ABS [storm.ABS come-CNP] ‘A storm came and many trees got broken.’

bɦ angil broke

English Expletive Control

(39)

a.

[Ram-ɒ r xɒ mɒ i na-thak-i] [Ram-GEN time NEG-keep-CNP] Ram-e bɦ at na-khal-e Ram-NOM rice NEG-ate-3 ‘Having no time, Ram didn’t eat rice.’

b.

*bɦ at [Ram-ɒ r xɒ mɒ i rice [Ram-GEN time Ram-e na-khal-e Ram-NOM NEG-ate-3 ‘Having no time, Ram didn’t eat rice.’

169

na-thak-i] NEG-keep-CNP]

4. English Expletive Control The above analysis of Assamese Expletive Control becomes problematic when compared with a similar analysis of Expletive Control – or the lack of it – in English. While Adjunct Control is allowed in English, (40a–b), there-Expletive Control (hereafter, Expletive Control) is banned, (41a–b), unless the expletive is phonologically realized in the adjunct as well, (42a– b) (Lasnik 1992: 244, (51)–(54)). (40) (41) (42)

a. b. a. b. a. b.

[∆i having witnessed the robbery] Johni aided the investigation. Harryi was a witness [without ∆i being a victim]. *[∆i having been a robbery] therei was an investigation. *Therei was a crime [without ∆i being a victim]. [There having been a robbery] there was an investigation. There was a crime [without there being a victim].

Lasnik (1992) analyzes the sentences in (40) within the PRO Theory. Given that Assamese licenses Backward and Copy Control into CNP clauses, and given that such structures are an indication that control, at least in this particular language, is derived via movment, I will limit the discussion in this section to the movement approach to control. Hornstein (2001) provides an analysis of (41a–b) within the Movement Theory of Control. He argues that the unacceptability of these structures follows from the restriction that all merge must be cyclic. To elaborate, building on Nunes 1995, 2004, Hornstein holds that Adjunct Control is derivationally the outcome of sideward movement and that

170

Adjunct Control violations as Expletive Control

(40b) has the derivation in (43). The adjunct clause and the matrix clause form independently, as (43a) illustrates, and Harry copies out of the adjunct and merges in Spec,vP of the matrix clause. Hornstein assumes that adjuncts merge with the matrix clause at vP or VP. In this case, the adjunct clause merges with the matrix vP, (43b). Upon merge, the adjunct becomes an island. In (43c), the matrix clause projects as high as IP; subsequently, Harry moves to Spec,IP, and CP projects. The highest copy of Harry ccommands the lower copies and forms a chain with each of them, as the dotted arrows show. At PF, the lower copy in each chain is deleted; the result is the structure in (43d).3 Notice that the derivation proceeds cyclically. That is, it obeys the Extension Condition. (43)

a. ADJUNCTP 3 SUBJ 6 Harry being a victim SIDEWARD MOVEMENT

IP 3 SUBJ I' Harry 3 I VP 3 V 6 was a witness

b.

[vP [vP Harry was a witness] [Adjunct without Harry being a victim]]

c. d.

[CP[IP Harry [vP[vP Harry was…][Adjunct without Harry…]]]] [CP[IP Harry [vP[vP Harry was…][Adjunct without Harry…]]]]

Now observe the derivation of the ungrammatical sentence (41a) as presented in (44). The adjunct clause and the matrix clause form independently. Then, the subordinate subject undergoes sideward movement to the matrix clause and the adjunct clause undergoes merge with the matrix clause, probably at VP. According to Hornstein, if the former step takes place first, (44a), it blocks the latter, (44b). The reason is that the subordinate subject, being an expletive, can only move to Spec,IP of the matrix clause. This means that I0 will have already projected by the time the adjunct has to merge with the matrix clause. In this case, the adjunct cannot undergo

English Expletive Control

171

merge at VP of the matrix clause without violating the Extension Condition. (44)

a. ADJUNCTP 3 SUBJ 6 there having been a robbery SIDEWARD MOVEMENT

b.

IP 3 SUBJ I' there 3 I VP 3 V 6 was an investigation

Blocked: [Matrix IP there [VP [VP was an investigation] [Adjunct without there having been a robbery]]]

By the same token, if the adjunct clause merges cyclically at VP, (45), the expletive subject can no longer move out of the subordinate clause. This is so because upon merge, the subordinate clause becomes an island. (45)

IP wo SUBJ I' 3 I VP qp VP ADJUNCTP 3 6 V 6 there having been a robbery was an investigation

On the basis of this analysis, Hornstein argues that the generalization in (46) is necessary for Adjunct Control to obtain. (46)

Movement from the adjunct must proceed through a theta position in the matrix. (Hornstein 2001: 120, (119))

172

Adjunct Control violations as Expletive Control

If the analysis in the previous section and the conclusion that Assamese licenses Expletive Control are on the right track, then the generalization in (46) becomes too restrictive. Closer examination shows that the two derivations in (44) and (45) are nonconverging not only for English, but also for Assamese. As we saw in Section 3, for Assamese Expletive Control to obtain, the CNP clause has to merge at CP of the matrix clause. Merging at VP as is the case in (44)–(45) leads to a violation of cyclicity and the Extension Condition. Let us see if the merge of the adjunct at CP saves the structure in English. As (47a–b) show, it should. The movement of the expletive is licit, and so is the merge of the adjunct in the sense that it does not violate the Extension Condition. (47)

a. ADJUNCTP 3 SUBJ 6 there having been a robbery SIDEWARD MOVEMENT

b.

IP 2 SUBJ I' there3 I VP 3 V 6 was an investigation

CP qp ADJUNCTP CP 3 3 SUBJ VP IP there 6 3 having been a robbery SUBJ I' there 3 I VP 3 V VP was 6 an investigation

English Expletive Control

173

One problem persists, however. Given that the Adjunct Phrase c-commands the matrix IP, it follows that the two copies of the expletive are in a precedence relation. Neither copy may be deleted, however. We learned in Chapter 3 that deletion of copies or Chain Reduction is contingent on Form Chain. The copies of there in (47b) do not enter a ccommand relationship and thus do not form a chain. One might argue that since structures like (42a–b), repeated here as (48a–b), with both expletives pronounced are grammatical, then probably English licenses Copy Expletive Control that mimics Assamese Copy Control. In other words, the two expletives are copies related through movement; the matrix clause is spelled out prior to the merge of the adjunct, as the grey box in (49) illustrates, rendering the pronunciation of the two copies of the expletive licit. (48) (49)

a. b.

[There having been a robbery] there was an investigation. There was a crime [without there being a victim].

CP qp ADJUNCTP CP 3 3 SUBJ VP IP there 6 3 having been a robbery SUBJ I' there 3 I VP 3 V VP was 6 an investigation

The solution in (49) faces two major problems. First, to the best of my knowledge, English does not license any other type of Copy Control; this renders the above analysis an isolated, ad hoc solution. In addition, the solution is challenged by structures like (48b) and (50a) in which the merging site of the adjunct seems to be lower than CP. That is, the adjunct merges with the matrix clause before the matrix CP is spelled out as a phase. Unless one assumes that the adjunct has undergone extraposition, the two copies of there are obviously in a c-command relationship. This means that the two copies may form a chain that is subject to Chain Reduction. The pre-

174

Adjunct Control violations as Expletive Control

diction is that one of the copies of there has to be deleted, which is not true. Such deletion leads to ungrammaticality, as (50b) shows. (50)

a. b.

Could there be an afterlife without there being a God? *Could there be an afterlife without being a God?

4

This leaves us with the derivation generally adopted in the literature. This derivation assumes that the two instances of there are copies of two different tokens selected from the numeration. That is, they are not related through movement. This means that the derivation of sentence (48b) is (51). The adjunct and matrix VP form independently, (51a). Subsequently, the adjunct merges with the matrix clause at VP, (51b). The matrix IP projects, and another copy of there selected from the numeration undergoes first merge in Spec,IP, (51c). Finally, the matrix CP projects, and the structure converges at PF. (51)

a. ADJUNCTP 3 without 3 SUBJ 6 there being a victim

VP 3 V 6 was a crime

b.

VP qp VP ADJUNCTP 3 6 V 6 without there being a victim was a crime

c.

IP ei SUBJ I' there 3 I VP qp VP ADJUNCTP 3 6 V 6 without there being a victim was a crime

Conclusion

175

This derivation seems to be more accurate especially since Expletive Control is not enforced in English. That is, if the subject of the adjunct is an expletive, this does not necessarily entail that the subject of the matrix clause has to be an expletive, as the sentences in (52) illustrate.5 (52)

a. b. c. d.

How can a tornado form without there being a thunderstorm? How can I flip my myspace profile without there being a big scrollbar at the bottom? Can herpes be tested without there being a sore? If you get an eyebrow ring, can you take it out without there being a noticeable, gaping hole near your eye?

It is worth noting that there is a major difference between the derivation in (51) and the one assumed in the literature. Take Hornstein’s (2001) account, for example. According to Hornstein, the restriction on English Expletive Control and the derivation in (51) follow from the generalization in (46), repeated here in (53). The ban on Expletive Control in English as discussed in this section, however, follows from the rules of linearization. See Nunes 2004: 51–52 and Chapter 1 in this monograph for a similar restriction on a derivation that employs across-the-board extraction. (53)

Movement from the adjunct must proceed through a theta position in the matrix. (Hornstein 2001: 120, (119))

5. Conclusion The main purpose of this chapter was to show that structures that are normally referred to in the literature as exceptions to Adjunct Control into CNP clauses are not really exceptions. They are Expletive Control structures that are allowed only if the CNP clause and the matrix clause involve unaccusative predicates. The reason is that unaccusative predicates allow a null expletive to fill the subject position.

Chapter 6 Trigger: Why movement in control?

1. Introduction The discussion in the previous chapters assumed that movement of the subject out of the CNP clause in Adjunct Control constructions is possible. There was no mention, however, of why the subject moves. Within the Minimalist Program, movement does not happen for free. The assumption has been that the subject moves in order to check Case – more specifically, Structural Case. This assumption is not without problems, however, especially when considered within a broader South Asian context. To elaborate, unlike Assamese, in which Backward Control is limited to structures with Inherent Case-marked CNP subjects, other South Asian languages, such as Mizo (Subbarao 2004) and Telugu (Subbarao 2004; Haddad 2009a), license Backward Control into CNP clauses across the board. This implies that movement for the purpose of checking Case is unwarranted. On the flip side, the Indo-Aryan language Sinhala does not license Backward or even Copy Control, which seems to imply that the CNP predicate in Sinhala does not check Structural Case. However, while Adjunct Control into CNP clauses is a possibility in Sinhala, noncontrol structures with CNP clauses are readily available, as we will see in Section 5. This all seems to suggest that attributing movement to Case is an oversimplification and that another factor must force the CNP subject to copy out of the CNP clause and merge in the matrix clause. This chapter explores this possibility, bringing to the fore evidence from Assamese, as well as other South Asian languages. The chapter is organized as follows. Sections 2 through 4 survey the literature for a possible answer. Section 2 checks whether Enlightened SelfInterest as proposed by Lasnik (1995) is the reason why the CNP subject moves. Section 3 tests Dubinsky and Hamano’s (2006) Event-based analysis of Obligatory Control and the idea that control involves movement only if the two clauses in a control structure do not express separate events. Section 4 checks whether the size of the adjunct (IP vs. CP) is decisive with respect to movement. The three accounts fail to explain why movement in Assamese Adjunct Control structures takes place. In Section 5, I provide an

Enlightened Self-Interest and control

177

analysis I originally proposed for Telugu (Haddad 2010b). I suggest that the CNP subject in Assamese undergoes movement in order to license the merge of the CNP clause with the matrix clause. 2. Enlightened Self-Interest and control In Minimalism, movement takes place as a last resort for the purpose of feature checking. Originally, Last Resort assumed that movement is greedy, as (1) indicates (Chomsky 1995). According to (1), an element can only move to check a feature of its own. Lasnik (1995; 2002: 28, (21b)) argues that Last Resort must take the form of Enlightened Self-Interest as formulated in (2). According to this new formulation, an element moves to satisfy a need of its own or a need of the target. (1) (2)

Greed Movement of α to β is for the satisfaction of formal requirements of α. Enlightened Self-Interest Movement of α to β is for the satisfaction of formal requirements of α or β.

When applied to the Movement Theory of Control, Enlightened SelfInterest standardly has come to mean that the subordinate subject moves in order to check its Case feature or to check the theta-role feature on the target or both. This idea seems to work for the Assamese Adjunct Control structures presented in Chapters 3 and 4. In these structures, the subject moves out of the CNP clause in order to check its Structural Case feature; at the same time, it checks the theta-role feature on the matrix vP. Nevertheless, this idea does not work for languages like Mizo. For example, the sentences in (3) illustrate that Mizo licenses a Backward Control structure with a nominative CNP subject. This implies that CNP predicates in Mizo check Structural Case and, thus, the subordinate subject does not have to move for the purpose of Case checking. (3)

Mizo (Subbarao 2004, in Davison 2008: 31, (9a–b)) a. Forward Control Zova-ni [∆i/*k tSutleng-ah a tSu ] Duh Zova.ERG [∆.NOM bench-on 3.S sit.INF] want ‘Zova wants [Zova to sit on the bench].’

178

Trigger: Why movement in control?

b.

Backward Control ∆i/*k [Zovai tSutleng-ah a tSu ] Duh ∆.ERG [Zova.NOM bench-on 3.S sit.INF] want ‘Zova wants [Zova to sit on the bench].’

In addition, if the analysis in Chapter 5 of (4a–b) as instances of Expletive Control is correct, then the idea that the CNP subject in Assamese moves in order to check the theta-role feature of the matrix vP becomes problematic. Expletives do not take on theta-roles, which makes their movement unjustified. (4)

a.

[proEXP botah bol-i] [proEXP wind.ABS blow-CNP] proEXP kagoz but noli gɔ l sheets of paper.ABS fly went proEXP ‘The wind blew, and the sheets of paper flew away.’

b.

[proEXP borokhum por-i] [proEXP rain.ABS fall-CNP] proEXP kheti barɦ il plants.ABS grow proEXP ‘The rain having fallen, the crop grew.’

As we saw in Chapter 5, however, evidence seems to suggest that Expletive Control in Assamese belongs to the category of Obligatory Control. That is, if the subject of the CNP clause is an expletive, the subject of the matrix clause has to be an expletive. Assuming that Adjunct Control in Assamese is derived via movement, this means that the two occurrences of proEXP in (4a) and (4b) are copies of the same expletive. It might be argued that Enlightened Self-Interest still holds for Assamese Expletive Control and that proEXP moves to the matrix clause in order to check the EPP feature on Spec,IP. While this may be correct, the counterargument is that the EPP feature may be checked by an expletive or an argument selected from the numeration, in which case no movement should be necessary. If this were correct, Assamese Expletive Control structures would be on a par with their English counterparts. That is, the matrix and CNP expletives would both be base-generated rather than related through movement. At the same time, it should be possible for the CNP clause to have an expletive in the subject position while the matrix subject position is

Event and control

179

filled with an argument. We know from Chapter 5, however, that this is not possible. All in all, Enlightened Self-Interest is not able to explain why the sideward movement of the CNP subject is mandatory. The question remains: Why does movement have to take place? The following section tries to find an explanation somewhere else. 3. Event and control Another proposal is offered by Dubinsky and Hamano (2006), who examine control into a certain type of adjunct in Japanese. This type of adjunct involves a locative ni, as exemplified in (5a–b) (Dubinsky and Hamano’s (4a–b)). The controller is the matrix subject, and the controllee is the unpronounced possessor of the ni-marked NP in the adjunct. (5)

Japanese a. Mari-wa [tue-o yoko ni] Mari-TOP [cane-ACC side at] ‘Mari stood up, with the cane at [her] side.’ b.

tatiagatta stood.up

Mari-wa [tue-o yoko ni si-te] Mari-TOP [cane-ACC side at do.TE] tatiagatta stood.up ‘Mari stood up, with the cane at [her] side.’ OR ‘Mari stood up, having laid the cane flat [i.e., on its side].’

Sentence (5a) is an instance of Obligatory Control. The identity of the possessor of the ni-marked NP must be determined by the matrix subject. Sentence (5b), which involves the light verb si ‘do’ and the gerundive marker -te, does not have this requirement, as the English translation shows. Dubinsky and Hamano consider (5a) to be an instance of movement, as illustrated in (6a). The adjunct is an aspectual phrase (ASPP). The possessor Mari of the ni-marked NP yoko ‘side’ moves out of ASPP to the subject position in the matrix clause. At PF, the lower copy is deleted. Sentence (5b), on the other hand, does not involve movement. As (6b) shows, the adjunct is a vP/TP, and the possessor of yoko ‘side’ is pro, which might or might not refer to the matrix subject. The presentation in (6) is based on Dubinsky and Hamano’s (14).

180

Trigger: Why movement in control?

(6)

Japanese a. Mari-wa [ASPP tue-o [Mari poss yoko] ni] Mari-TOP [ASPP cane-ACC [Mariposs side ] at] tatiagatta stood.up ‘Mari stood up, with the cane at [her] side.’ b.

Mari-wa [TP [vP [AspP tue-o [pro poss yoko] ni] Mari-TOP [TP [vP [AspP cane-ACC [proposs side] at] si] te] tatiagatta do] TE] stood.up ‘Mari stood up, with the cane at [her] side.’ OR ‘Mari stood up, having laid the cane flat [i.e., on its side].’

Another difference between (5a) and (5b) is that the former depicts one event while the latter depicts two events. In (5a), the cane is on Mari’s side as she stands up. Sentence (5b), however, refers to a sequence of events: the cane is put on its side first, and then Mari stands up. From this observation, Dubinsky and Hamano conclude that the adjunct in (5a) is part of the event of the matrix clause, while (5b) comprises two independent events that allow different temporal expressions. They attribute this difference to the presence of si-te in (5b).1 On the basis of the event-splitting quality of -te, Dubinsky and Hamano maintain that an adjunct with -te projects an Event Phrase that assigns an event index EN on an agreeing NP. Conversely, an adjunct without -te does not project an Event Phrase and, consequently, the possessor NP is not assigned an event index. Dubinsky and Hamano further hold that an NP may check more than one theta-role as long as it has not been assigned an event index. Conversely, “an NP with index EN cannot further check theta-roles in a derivation” (p. 14). This leads to the conclusion that the possessor in (5a), which has not been marked with EN yet, is allowed to move out of the adjunct to check the theta-role feature of the matrix vP, while the possessor in (5b) freezes for theta-role-related movement because of the EN that it has received from -te. Dubinsky and Hamano’s argument seems to work for Japanese but not for Assamese. The reason is that CNP clauses in this language denote their own events, as illustrated in (7). Sentences (7a–b) contain CNP clauses with temporal expressions that are distinct from those of the matrix clauses. This is an explicit indication that a CNP clause depicts its own event. Sentence (7c) does not include any temporal expressions. Semantically, how-

Event and control

181

ever, it only means that the particular couple kissed and then left. It does not mean that the couple left (while) kissing. (7)

a.

[January-t [January-LOC Ram-e Ram-NOM ‘Ram won the in March.’

b.

[jua bosor [past year boss-to-r boss-CL-GEN dukh lagil sad felt ‘The boss lost weeks.’

c.

lottery jik-i] lottery win-CNP] March-ot notun gɦɒ r kinil-e March-LOC new house bought-3 lottery in January and bought a new house kukur-to ɦ eru-i] dog-CL lose-CNP] karone dui xoptaɦ -r two weeks-GEN for his dog last year and he was sad for two

[suma kha-i] Ram aru Prajakta gusi gɔ l [kiss eat-CNP] Ram and Prajakta away went ‘Having kissed each other, Ram and Prajakta left.’ NOT: ‘Ram and Prajakta left (while) kissing each other.’

To my knowledge, this observation applies to all South Asian languages that license Obligatory Adjunct Control into CNP clauses. For example, it applies to Telugu, as (8a–c) illustrate. The CNP and matrix clauses in (8a) and (8b) each have their own temporal expression. And just like (7c), (8c) means that the couple kissed and then left. It does not mean that the couple left while kissing. (8)

Telugu a. Sarita [enimidinTiki bhojanamu tayaru Sarita.NOM [at 8:00 dinner prepare ceesikun-i] tommidinTiki tinnaa-di do.REFL-CNP] at 9:00 ate-3.N.S ‘Sarita prepared dinner for herself at 8:00, and she ate at 9:00.’

182

Trigger: Why movement in control?

b.

[Naa boss-ki pooyina-waaram koopam [my boss-DAT last-week anger wacc-i] atanu muuDu roojulu come-CNP] he three days waraku tina-leedu until eat-didn’t ‘My boss got angry last week, and he didn’t eat for three days.’

c.

[Kumaar unnu Sarita muddu [Kumar.NOM and Sarita.NOM kiss peTTukun-i] waallu-iddaru wellipooyaa-ru put.REFL-CNP] they-both left-3.M.P ‘Kumar and Sarita kissed each other and left.’ NOT: ‘Kumar and Sarita left (while) kissing each other.’

In Dubinsky and Hamano’s system, a structure with a subordinate clause that projects its own Event Phrase does not involve movement for the purpose of control. The possessor of the ni-marked NP is a pro whose identity may be determined by the matrix subject, though it does not have to be (e.g., (5b)). The reason is that an argument that is assigned an event index (EN) is not allowed to move into a new thematic position. The examples in (7) and (8) suggest that CNP clauses in Assamese, as well as in Telugu, do project an Event Phrase. Still, they all enforce an Obligatory Control interpretation and, most probably, movement. Therefore, the event structure of Assamese and Telugu control constructions is not responsible for the sideward movement of the CNP subject. The following section examines yet another possibility. 4. CP vs. IP and control Recall from Chapter 2 that Assamese licenses two categories of adjuncts: CNP clauses and INF clauses. Only a CNP clause requires a control dependency between its subject and the subject of the matrix clause. An INF clause does not require such a dependency. Another difference is that INF clauses may involve an overt complementizer, (9a), while CNP clauses categorically disallow an overt complementizer, (9b). Thus, it may be argued that the difference in control behavior between CNP clauses and INF clauses is related to the size of the adjunct.

CP vs. IP and control

(9)

183

a.

[Ram-ɒ r phurti lag-a-r karone] [Ram-GEN exhilaration do-INF-GEN because] xi pagolor nisena nasil-e he.NOM crazy person like danced-3 ‘Because Ram felt very happy, he danced like a crazy person.’

b.

[Ram-ɒ r phurti lag-i (*karone)] [Ram-GEN exhilaration do-CNP (because)] Ram-e pagolor nisena nasil-e Ram-NOM crazy person like danced-3 ‘Having felt very happy, Ram danced like a crazy person.’

Again, this observation applies to other South Asian languages that license control into CNP clauses, as the Telugu sentences in (10) illustrate. (10)

Telugu a. [Kumaar-ki aakali wees-ina-anduku] [Kumar-DAT hunger fall-INF-because] atanu bhojanamu tayaru ceesikunaa-Du he.NOM dinner prepare did.REFL-3.M.S ‘Because Kumar felt hungry, he prepared dinner.’ b.

Kumaar [Kumaar-ki aakali wees-i-(*anduku)] Kumar.NOM [Kumar-DAT hunger fall-CNP-(because)] bhojanamu tayaru ceesikunaa-Du dinner prepare did.REFL-3.M.S ‘Having felt hungry, Kumar prepared dinner.’

Therefore, it is fair to assume that INF clauses are CPs. By the same token, it is not unreasonable to consider CNP clauses to be IPs, as they are conventionally assumed to be (Jayaseelan 2004). This observation suggests that the size of the adjunct has a say in whether or not control can obtain: an IP adjunct enforces control, while a CP adjunct does not. This intuition is captured by San Martin (2004), who provides evidence from several languages (e.g., Romanian and Serbo-Croatian) to show that the subordinate clause in Exhaustive Control, just like in raising, is an IP. The sentences in (11)–(12) are examples from Romanian. Sentences (11a– c) are raising structures. They show that raising is only possible when the subordinate clause is an IP, (11a). If the subordinate clause has an overt

184

Trigger: Why movement in control?

complementizer (i.e., if it is a CP), the subject has to remain downstairs, (11b); otherwise, the result is ungrammaticality, (11c). The same applies to control. Sentence (12) is an instance of Exhaustive Control, in which case the subordinate clause may not be realized with an overt complementizer. (11)

(12)

Romanian (San Martin 2004: 93, (53)–(55), from Roussou 2001) a. toţi băietii sau nimerit all boys the REFL have happened [să fie bolnavi] [SUBJ be sick] ‘All the boys happened to be sick.’ b.

sa nimerit [ca toţi it has happened [COMP all să fie bolnavi] SUBJ be sick] ‘It has happened that all the boys are sick.’

băietii boys the

c.

*toţi băietii sau nimerit all boys the REFL have happened [că să fie bolnavi] [COMP SUBJ be sick] ‘All the boys happened to be sick.’

Romanian (San Martin 2004: 94, (56), from Alboiu and Motapanyane 2000) Mioarai a început [(*ca) să sei Mioara has started [(COMP) SUBJ REFL pregătească de plecare] prepare.3.S of departure] ‘Mioara has started to prepare the departure.’

San Martin excludes Partial Control from her analysis.2 What Partial Control structures have in common is that they allow an overt complementizer, in which case control does not apply. Sentence (13a) is an example of Partial Control from English. Sentence (13b) shows that an overt complementizer in the subordinate clause is possible, and no control requirement is enforced.

CP vs. IP and control

(13)

a. b.

185

Tom wants [to meet at 7:00]. Tom wants [for Sue to win].

San Martin’s observation seems to apply to the control structures analyzed in this chapter. A CNP clause may never occur with an overt complementizer, as (14a–b) show. (14)

a.

Assamese [Ram aru Prajakta-e suma kha-i-(*pasot)] [Ram and Prajakta-NOM kiss eat-CNP-(after)] Ram aru Prajakta gusi gɔ l Ram and Prajakta.ABS away went ‘Having kissed each other, Ram and Prajakta left.’

b.

Telugu [Kumaar unnu Sarita okari-ki okaru [Kumar and Sarita.NOM one-to one kathalu ceppukun-tuu-(*appudu)] stories tell.REFL-CNP-(while)] Kumaar unnu Sarita nawwukunnaa-Du Kumar.NOM and Sarita.NOM laughed.REFL-3.M.P ‘While telling stories to each other, Kumar and Sarita laughed.’

In addition, sentences with CNP clauses are Exhaustive Control structures, as exemplified in (15) and (16). (15)

(16)

Assamese *[Ram aru Prajakta-e suma kiss [Ram and Prajakta-NOM Ram gusi gɔ l Ram.ABS away went ‘Having kissed each other, Ram left.’

kha-i] eat-CNP]

Telugu *[Kumaar unnu Sarita okari-ki okaru kathalu [Kumar and Sarita.NOM one-to one stories ceppukun-tuu] Kumaar nawwukunnaa-Du tell-CNP] Kumar.NOM laughed.REFL-3.M.S ‘While telling stories to each other, Kumar laughed.’

186

Trigger: Why movement in control?

Let us assume with San Martin that Exhaustive Control structures include IP subordinate clauses while Partial Control structures contain CP subordinate clauses. The sentences in (14)–(16) seem to suggest that CNP clauses are IPs, as I continue to assume, while INF clauses are CPs. This assumption is based on two facts: First, CNP clauses never take an overt complementizer, while INF clauses do.3 Second, CNP clauses enforce Exhaustive Control, while INF clauses do not. The question is: What can CP do that IP cannot? And how does CP interfere with control? At least two answers are available in the literature. These will be discussed in sections 4.1 and 4.2. 4.1. IP as defective for [Person] San Martin’s (2004) approach to control is a version of the PRO Theory of Control. She argues that control structures only license PRO and that PRO and lexical subjects are in complementary distribution. She also maintains that the size of the complement clause is decisive in the licensing process. (17)

In complement clauses, lexical subjects arise in CPs, whereas PRO is licensed in bare TPs. (San Martin 2004: 169, (85))4

According to San Martin, IP complements have an incomplete I0 with a [+Tense] feature but no [Person] feature. I0 [+Tense, –Person] is able to check Case on the embedded subject (evidence for Case comes from elements such as floating quantifiers in Icelandic (Sigurðsson 1991)), but it is not able to license a lexical/overt subject. An indicative CP, however, licenses a lexical subject because C0 endows I0 with a [Person] feature. Consequently, a CP complement has a complete I0 [+Tense, +Person], which can check the [Person] feature of its subject, allowing it to be overt. The lexical subject of a CP complement does not have to be coreferential with the matrix subject. Thus, an Obligatory Control interpretation is not required. This analysis becomes suspect when viewed in the light of the Assamese data examined in this monograph. Chapter 3 shows that Assamese Adjunct Control structures qualify as instances of Obligatory Control. In San Martin’s system, this is only possible if the CNP clause is an IP. At the same time, Assamese Adjunct Control structures may be realized as instances of Backward or Copy Control. In other words, what is considered a PRO in San Martin’s analysis may be realized as an overt subject in Assa-

CP vs. IP and control

187

mese. This should be possible only if the CNP clause is a CP. This contradiction leads to one of the following conclusions. The first conclusion is that CNP clauses are CPs, which is why they may license a lexicalized subject. In this case, it remains to be explained why the overt subject has to be obligatorily coreferential with the matrix subject. Another possibility is that CNP clauses are IPs, which is why a control interpretation is required. In this case, we need to explain how a defective I0 [–Person] can license a lexicalized subject. Any attempt at explaining either conclusion has to resort to a stipulation and will not capture the generalization that is originally captured in San Martin’s work. No such attempt will be made here. The following section gives the issue of size another chance and examines the difference between CPs and IPs from a slightly different perspective. 4.2. IP as defective for [Tense] According to Chomsky (2000: 124; 2004), clauses that project no higher than IP are defective in the sense that they cannot license a Structural Casemarked subject. Chomsky holds that I0 derives tense and agreement from C0. I0 without C0 has defective [Tense] that does not check the Structural Case feature of the subject. Accordingly, the subject undergoes “further movement and agreement.”5 This idea is analyzed at length by Pesetsky and Torrego (2001), who argue that Structural Case is an uninterpretable [Tense] feature on NPs/DPs. In the environment of I0 with defective or unvalued [Tense], the subject does not check Structural Case. Assuming that CNP clauses are IPs while INF clauses are CPs, the conclusion is that CNP clauses do not license a Structural Case-marked subject because they have a defective I0. Consequently, the subject has to move. INF clauses, on the other hand, have a complete I0. This means that the INF subject checks its Structural Case feature, which is why it does not have to move. This approach works for Assamese. As Chapter 3 mentions, Assamese CNP clauses do not seem to check Structural Case, which is why Backward and Copy Control constructions with Structural Case-marked subjects are generally considered unacceptable. The same does not apply to Assamese INF clauses, which do license Structural Case-marked subjects. The approach does not work for other South Asian languages, such as Mizo and Telugu, however. The fact that Forward and Backward Control structures are perfectly interchangeable and equally acceptable in these

188

Trigger: Why movement in control?

languages indicates that the CNP subject and the matrix subject have an equal status with regard to Case. Otherwise, Chain Reduction would always spare the matrix copy and mark the CNP copy for deletion. Under such circumstances, Forward Control structures would be at least more acceptable than their Backward Control counterparts, which is not true. To summarize thus far, Section 2 shows that Enlightened Self-Interest is less likely to be the reason why the CNP subject moves to the matrix clause. Section 3 explores Dubinsky and Hamano’s argument that movement into a theta-role position is possible only if the subordinate clause and the matrix clause comprise the same event. This possibility has also been ruled out on empirical grounds: Assamese and Telugu CNP clauses project their own Event Phrases. Still, movement takes place. Finally, Section 4 examines the possibility that the size of the adjunct (CP vs. IP) has an effect on movement. Apparently, it doesn’t. The three sections share one main idea: the movement of α (the CNP subject) to β (matrix v0) is not triggered by formal requirements – or features (Case, theta-role, event index, etc.) – of α or β. Consequently, we are left with two possibilities. One, α does not move to β. That is, there is no movement at all. The CNP and matrix subjects in Assamese and Telugu Adjunct Control structures are base-generated. Or, α moves to β for reasons beyond α and β. Stated differently, the CNP subject has to move to Spec,vP of the matrix clause to satisfy some requirement. This requirement, however, is neither its own nor the target’s. The former option is certainly plausible. As a matter of fact, it is a restatement of the PRO Theory of Control. Adopting this option, however, means revising some of the major premises of the PRO Theory of Control, a project that is worth a separate study in its own right. The latter option, on the other hand, is an invitation to dig a little deeper in order to see what else other than α and β can make α move to β. The following section proposes that the answer to this puzzle resides in the nature of the adjunct itself, not as a CP or an IP, but more importantly as an appropriate syntactic object for merge. 5. Movement and predication 5.1. Theoretical assumptions The CNP clause in Assamese Adjunct Control structures may be realized with an overt subject. This is strong evidence that the CNP clause is propo-

Movement and predication

189

sitional. That is, it is a predicate with a closed or filled subject position. Despite being a proposition, however, the CNP clause behaves like a predicative structure. That is, its behavior is similar to the behavior of structures with an open or unfilled subject position. In this section, I suggest that this predicative characteristic makes it necessary that the CNP clause undergo merge as a predicate rather than a proposition, which is only possible if the CNP subject undergoes movement. Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 lay out some theoretical assumptions related to the merge of adjuncts and to predication. Section 5.2 shows that CNP clauses in Assamese are more likely to bear a predicative head, which is why they behave like open predicates. Section 5.3 provides evidence from Sinhala, another South Asian language, to show that if the head of the CNP clause is propositional (i.e., if the CNP clause may merge as a proposition), the movement of the subject – and thus control interpretation – is not enforced. 5.1.1. The merge of adjuncts In Minimalism, merge is defined as an instance of a probe-goal relation between two syntactic objects determined by the features on the heads of the probe and the goal. That is, if α and β merge, some feature F of α must probe F on β (Chomsky 2000: 132–135; Hornstein 2001: 56; Adger 2003: 91; Pesetsky and Torrego 2006). Whereas the above definition is true of the merge of complements, it does not automatically apply to the merge of adjuncts. Unlike complements, adjuncts do not have to meet the selection requirements of the head they merge with (Chomsky 2004: 117). This means that adjuncts do not enter a probe-goal relation with the head of the structure they adjoin to, and accordingly they do not value features on probes. Still, adjunction is a type of merge. Following Webelhuth (1992: 86), I assume that when properties of a syntactic object cannot be determined by selection, the object’s behavior may be dictated by the properties of its own head. Applying this assumption to the adjuncts under investigation, we may conclude that the merge of a CNP clause with the matrix clause depends solely on the characteristics of the head of the former. Section 5.2 presents evidence to show that although CNP clauses are semantically propositional, syntactically they are dominated by a predicative head.

190

Trigger: Why movement in control?

5.1.2. Predication For the purpose of this study, I adopt the structural theory of predication as proposed by Rothstein (2001). According to this theory, predication relations may be determined on purely syntactic grounds without reference to semantics. Stated differently, although mapping between semantic and syntactic predicates is possible, “syntactic predication relations can be defined without reference to semantic or thematic concepts” (Rothstein 2001: 60– 61). For example, a pleonastic may appear in the subject position of a predicate constituent only to satisfy a syntactic condition, namely, the Predicate Licensing Condition in (18). (18)

The Predicate Licensing Condition Every syntactic predicate must be syntactically saturated … by being linked to a non-predicate constituent, its subject. (Rothstein 2001: 47)

According to Rothstein, the Predicate Licensing Condition may be satisfied directly, whereby a nonpredicate constituent fills the subject position of a predicate, and together they form a closed maximal constituent or a proposition, (19a). It may also be satisfied indirectly, in which case the predicate – a subordinate phrasal structure – is linked to (or predicated of) a nonpredicate constituent in a higher clause, (19b). (19)

a.

[SUBJECT

PREDICATE]

b.

[[SUBJECT …] [PREDICATE]]

In addition, there are two types of predicates: inherent (20a) and derived (20b) (Rothstein 2001: 58–60, (55)). Examples of inherent predicates are APs and VPs. An example of derived predicates is a predicative CP. A CP is inherently nonpredicative – that is, propositional – unless an operator is inserted in Spec,CP, binding a syntactic variable inside CP, in which case it becomes predicative. For example, for you to read in (21) (Rothstein’s (52b)) is a derived predicate. (20)

a.

Inherent predicates Inherent predicates are maximal projections of lexical heads.

Movement and predication

191

b.

(21)

Derived predicates Derived predicates are derived from maximal projections of functional heads by syntactic operations. I bought a book [CP OPi [C' for [IP you to read ti]]].

Most crucially, Rothstein (2001: 58–60) holds that predicates (inherent or derived) cannot function as arguments, as (22) (Rothstein’s (56–iv)) explicitly states (see also Stowell 1991). For example, sentences (23a–b) (Rothstein’s (54a–b)) are ungrammatical because a derived predicate occupies an argument position. (22) (23)

Predicates are not assigned theta-roles since these are assigned to syntactically closed maximal projections. a. *I persuaded John [CP OPi [C' [for John to meet ti]]]. b. *[CP OPi [C' [For John to meet ti]]] would seem unlikely.

The following section presents evidence that CNP clauses are syntactically predicative. 5.2. CNP clauses as predicative Evidence that CNP clauses in Assamese are less likely to be closed predicate constituents comes from two sources. First, CNP clauses may never take an overt complementizer, which seems to indicate that they do not project higher than IP (Jayaseelan 2004). In other words, they are not CPs, which according to Rothstein are inherently nonpredicative constituents. Further, CNP clauses may never merge as arguments (see Masica 2005: 127). To elaborate, observe the Assamese structures in (24). Sentence (24a) includes two NPs, one in the subject position (Ram-ɒ r jibon-to ‘Ram’s life’) and one in a complement position (kam aru poisa ‘work and money’). The prediction is that neither of these may be replaced by a CNP clause. This prediction is borne out, as (24b–c) illustrate. (24)

Assamese a. [NP Ram-ɒ r jibon-to] [NP kam [NP Ram-GEN life-CL] [NP work poisa] hoi gɔ is-e money] be go-3 ‘Ram’s life is work and money.’

aru and

192

Trigger: Why movement in control?

b.

*[Ram-ɒ r bɦ al lag-i(-to)] [Ram-GEN good feel-CNP(-CL)] gɔ ise tar gɦ oiniyak hoi his wife be go-3 ‘The reason Ram is feeling good is his wife.’

c.

*[Ram-ɒ r dur-goti ho-i(-to)] [Ram-GEN bad-phase be-CNP(-CL)] tar jua khela hoi gɔ is-e his gambling playing be go-3 ‘The reason Ram is not doing well is his gambling.’

Nevertheless, the subject NP can be replaced by an INF clause, as sentences (25a–b) illustrate. Assuming that only closed predicates can fill a subject position, we can deduce that Assamese INF clauses function as nonpredicative constituents. (25)

a.

[Ram-ɒ r bɦ al lag-a-r karon-to] [Ram-GEN good feel-INF-GEN because-CL] tar gɦ oiniyak hoi gɔ is-e his wife be go-3 ‘The reason Ram is feeling good is his wife.’

b.

[Ram-ɒ r dur-goti ho-a-r karon-to] [Ram-GEN bad-phase be-INF-GEN because-CL] tar jua khela hoi gɔ is-e his gambling playing be go-3 ‘The reason Ram is not doing well is his gambling.’

Let us assume that the above observations suffice to conclude that Assamese CNP clauses may not merge as closed predicate constituents. The question is: In what capacity do they merge when they adjoin to the matrix clauses of Adjunct Control structures? In Section 5.1, I suggested that the merge of an adjunct depends on the feature specification of the head. Assuming that CNP clauses do not qualify as closed predicate constituents, this means that they undergo merge as open predicates. However, evidence from Backward Control shows that the subject position of CNP clauses is filled clause-internally, which means that CNP clauses cannot be inherent predicates. Further, only lexical projections qualify as inherent predicates (see (20a)). CNP clauses are IPs, which are

Movement and predication

193

not lexical projections. Therefore, we are left with one possibility: To undergo merge as open predicates, CNP clauses must qualify as derived predicates. According to Rothstein, this is possible only if a syntactic operation converts them to open predicates (see (20b)). I suggest that the operation in this case is movement. The CNP subject moves to the matrix predicate, allowing the CNP clause to merge as an open predicate that is indirectly predicated of an element in the matrix clause. If this approach is on the right track, at least four questions arise. First, how can a phrasal structure be a saturated predicate while its head is nonpredicative? The answer to this question depends crucially on the main premise of the structural theory of predication as delineated in Section 5.1: “Syntactic predication relation can be defined without reference to semantic or thematic concepts” (Rothstein 2001: 60). In the present analysis, this means that semantically the CNP clause can be a saturated predicate, yet syntactically it does not project a nonpredicative head, namely, a CP. This idea is reminiscent of the role of D in DP. A bare NP is crucially predicative; the projection of D0 renders it nonpredicative (Higginbotham 1987; Rothstein 2001). Szabolcsi (1994: 181) makes a more explicit comparison between C0 and D0, holding that they both “enable a ‘proposition’ to act as an argument.” If the observation that arguments are necessarily nonpredicative is correct, then C0 and D0 are similar in that they both are nonpredicative heads. CNP clauses do not project as high as CP. In other words, they lack the nonpredicative head C0. The second question is: Why don’t we adopt the approach in Rothstein 2001 and assume that a null operator is inserted at the edge of the CNP clause, binding a variable inside the clause? In this case, no movement would be involved. This approach is problematic on two grounds. First, if the assumption that CNP clauses are not CPs is correct, this means that no site is available for the merge of the null operator. Second, the CNP clause of Backward Control structures may contain an overt nonvariable lexical item that cannot be bound by an operator. In addition, it is worth mentioning that not all derived predicates involve an operator that binds a variable. Another type of derived predicate is sentential predicates; these are “maximal projections that constitute a fully saturated argument structure,” yet they can “function as predicates without the presence of an operator” (Heycock 1994: 263). In other words, sentential predicates do not involve operator-gap dependency. For example, the Hebrew sentence (26) (from Heycock and Doron 2003: (58b)) contains the sentential predicate Sotim oto ba-boker ‘one drinks it in the morning’ and the subject kafe tov ‘good coffee’. According to Heycock and Doron (2003:

194

Trigger: Why movement in control?

95), the subject is base-generated – that is, no movement is involved – and it is “interpreted by virtue of abstraction over a position within the clause, which is occupied syntactically by a pronoun,” in this case oto ‘it’. (26)

Hebrew kafe tov Sotim oto ba-boker coffee good drink.3.M.P it in.the-morning ‘Good coffee, one drinks it in the morning.’

Given this discussion, one can consider CNP clauses as sentential predicates in the style of Heycock and Doron 2003. Unlike Heycock and Doron’s sentential predicates, however, CNP clauses are nonfinite and, most crucially, they involve movement. The third question is related to the derivation as presented in Chapters 3 and 4. If the subject moves to license the merge of the CNP clause, the question is: What type of movement is this? It is not triggered by Greed or by Attract. Closer observation shows that this type of movement is not different from the movement that takes place to check a feature on the target, which incidentally may take place anyway. In both cases, an element moves in order to serve a purpose other than its own, with the result that the structure converges. Accordingly, I suggest that Enlightened SelfInterest now should read as (27). (27)

Enlightened Self-Interest Revisited Movement of α to β takes place in order to a. satisfy formal requirements of α, b. satisfy formal requirements of β, or c. license the merge of the constituent that dominates α.

The fourth question is: At what point does the CNP clause realize that it is not going to project a nonpredicative CP and thus urge its subject to move? This usually happens when the numeration is exhausted. If movement happens before the numeration is exhausted, then the undesired operation Look Ahead must be involved, in which case the CNP clause is expected to foresee the problem and take action. Fortunately, the implementation of Look Ahead becomes unnecessary if we assume that the computational system works with subarrays of the numeration rather than with the whole numeration at once (Chomsky 2000). In this sense, the CNP and matrix clauses in sentence (28a) would be assembled on the basis of two separate subarrays, as (28b–c) illustrate. When

Movement and predication

195

the CNP subarray is exhausted, the CNP clause realizes that its head is predicative and that there are no more items at its disposal to change the situation. This is when the subject copies out of the CNP clause and becomes available in the workspace, awaiting merge in the matrix clause. Upon merging with the matrix predicate, the subject licenses the merge of the CNP clause as a predicate. (28)

a.

Sarita-e [Sarita-r piaɦ lag-i] Sarita-NOM [Sarita-GEN thirst feel-CNP] lemonade khal-e lemonade drank-3 ‘Having felt thirsty, Sarita drank lemonade.’

b.

CNP subarray: {Sarita1, piaɦ1, lag1, -i1}

c.

Matrix subarray: {lemonade1, kha1, Tense1, Agr1}

Adjunct Control into CNP clauses is not unique to Assamese. It is a feature that is shared among all South Asian languages. I suggest that this type of control is derived by movement, and that movement takes place in order to license the merge of a predicative CNP clause. If this is correct, a nontrivial prediction follows: If CNP clauses in a given language of South Asia behave as nonpredicative constituents, movement becomes unnecessary and control interpretation becomes optional. Fortunately, such a language exists. The details are given in the following section. 5.3. Sinhala CNP clauses as nonpredicative Like Assamese, Sinhala licenses Adjunct Control into CNP clauses, as sentences (29a–b) illustrate (Taylor 2006: 153–154, (9)–(10)). Notice that the CNP subject, which is obligatorily silent, has to be coreferential with the matrix subject. (29)

a.

wanDurai [Δi/*k palleha-Tǝ æwil-la] monkey [Δ down-DAT come-CNP] Toppi goDǝ issuwa hats heap stole ‘The monkey came down and stole the hats.’

196

Trigger: Why movement in control?

b.

æyǝi [Δi/*k saŋgi-tǝ aha-la] she [Δ music-DAT hear-CNP] ‘She heard music and danced.’

æTuwa danced

However, Sinhala CNP clauses have other functions that Gair (2003) describes as “unusual” and “unique” among South Asian languages. They can function as independent, matrix predicates. Sentence (30) (from Taylor 2006: 151, (5)) is an example.6 (30)

mamə Renu-wə dækka I Renu-ACC saw æyə gihil-la she go-CNP ‘I saw Renu but now she has gone.’

habei but

dæn now

In addition, CNP clauses in Sinhala may be realized in an argument position, (31) (from Taylor 2006: 159, (24b)). Notice that in this case the CNP clause takes an overt complementizer. (31)

[horek tamange kææmə horəkam [robber self.GEN food theft kiyəla] ohu dææka COMP] he saw ‘He saw that a robber had stolen his food.’

kərə-la do-CNP

Assuming that independent clauses are CPs and that an overt complementizer is evidence of a CP layer, we may conclude that the CNP clauses in (30) and (31) project as high as CP.7 This is further supported by the fact that independent clauses and arguments are nonpredicative, which is an inherent characteristic of CPs. This means that the CNP subject in Sinhala Adjunct Control structure does not have to move in order to license the merge of the CNP clause. The head of the CNP clause is nonpredicative and it may merge with the matrix clause as a closed predicate. Therefore, unless there is another reason for the subject to move, control into Sinhala CNP clauses should be optional. This prediction is correct, as (32)–(33) show (from Gair et al. 1998: 275–277, (9b) and (14a)). (32)

mamə [Kalyaani gedərə gihil-la] kææmə I [Kalyani home go-CNP] food ‘Kalyani went home and I ate.’

kææwa ate

Conclusion

(33)

197

[amma gaməTə gihil-la] mamə [mother village.DAT go-CNP] I seerəmə gedərə wæDə kərannə oonə all house work do necessary ‘With Mother gone to the village, I have to do all the housework.’

Control into CNP clauses in Sinhala obtains only when the CNP subject is unpronounced, (34) (from Gair et al. 1998: 275, (9a)). See also (29) above. (34)

maməi [Δi/*k gedərə gihil-la] I [Δ home go-CNP] kææmə kææwa food ate ‘I went home and ate.’ OR ‘Having gone home, I ate.’

6. Conclusion One of the main arguments used against the Movement Theory of Control is related to the trigger for movement, or why movement takes place. Given that subordinate subjects of control structures in several languages (e.g., Icelandic) check Case in the subordinate clause, it is hard to argue that movement takes place for the purpose of the structural licensing of the subject (see Sigurðsson 2008). At the same time, the assumption that the subject moves in order to satisfy the thematic requirement of the matrix predicate is contentious. In the case of Assamese Adjunct Control into CNP clauses, I argue that the subject moves in order to license the merge of the subordinate clause that hosts it. The head of the CNP clause in Assamese bears a predicative feature that only allows the adjunct to merge as a predicate that will eventually be saturated by an element in the matrix clause. The movement of the CNP subject to the matrix clause satisfies this requirement.

Chapter 7 Summary and conclusion

1. Summary I set out to explore Adjunct Control in Assamese within the Minimalist Program of syntactic theory (Chomsky 1995 and subsequent work). Adjunct Control structures comprise two obligatorily coreferential subjects, one in the matrix clause and one in the adjunct/subordinate clause. Assamese has nonfinite conjunctive participle (CNP) clauses that function as adjuncts. The language licenses Adjunct Control into CNP clauses. Three types of Adjunct Control were examined: Forward Control, Backward Control, and Copy Control. As (1) illustrates, in Forward Control structures the matrix subject is pronounced while the CNP subject is implied. Conversely, in Backward Control structures the CNP subject is pronounced and the matrix subject is implied. Copy Control contains two pronounced subjects. See Haddad and Potsdam,to appear, for a similar typology based on a cross-linguistic survey. (1)

Types of Adjunct Control a. Forward Control [Matrix [Matrix Subject…] b. Backward Control [Matrix [Matrix Subject…] c. Copy Control [Matrix [CNP Subject…]

[CNP Subject…]] [CNP Subject…]] [Matrix Subject…]]

In Chapter 2, I presented evidence for the three types of control. Assamese licenses Forward Control without restriction, (2). Under the right conditions, Assamese also licenses Backward and Copy Control, (3)–(4). (2)

Forward Control Ram-e [Ram-ɒ r bɦ ok hunger Ram-NOM [Ram-GEN posa bɦ at khal-e stale rice ate-3 ‘Having felt hungry, Ram ate stale rice.’

lag-i] feel-CNP]

Summary

(3)

(4)

Backward Control Ram-e [Ram-ɒ r bɦ ok [Ram-GEN hunger Ram-NOM posa bɦ at khal-e stale rice ate-3 ‘Having felt hungry, Ram ate stale rice.’

199

lag-i] feel-CNP]

Copy Control [Ram-ɒ r bɦ ok lag-i] [Ram-GEN hunger feel-CNP] xi/besera-to-e/Ram-e posa bɦ at he.NOM/poor guy-CL-NOM/Ram-NOM stale rice khal-e ate-3 ‘Ram felt very hungry, and he/the poor guy ate stale rice.’

Further, as (1c) and (4) tacitly indicate, Copy Control obtains only if the conditions in (5) apply. (5)

Conditions on Copy Control in Assamese a. The CNP clause must be sentence-initial. b. The CNP subject must be an R-expression. c. The CNP subject is licensed by an experiential predicate.

If these conditions are met, three subcategories of Copy Control become available, depending on the nature of the matrix subject. These are listed in (6). (6)

Subtypes of Copy Control a. [Matrix [CNP R-expression…] b. [Matrix [CNP R-expression…] c. [Matrix [CNP R-expression…]

[Matrix Pronoun…]] [Matrix Epithet…]] [Matrix R-expression…]]

In Chapters 3 and 4, I proposed an analysis of Adjunct Control as movement (Hornstein 1999). Following Nunes (2004), I argued that the subject starts out in the subordinate clause and undergoes sideward movement to the matrix clause, resulting in nondistinct copies of the same element in both clauses. Decisions regarding the pronunciation of copies take place on the phonological side of the computation for the purpose of linearization.

200

Summary and conclusion

According to Kayne (1994), a structure is considered linearized only if all c-command and precedence relations are asymmetrical. In other words, if X c-commands or precedes Y, Y necessarily does not c-command or precede X. Nunes (2004), building on Kayne 1994, argues that a structure that comprises multiple nondistinct copies of the same token can be properly linearized only if all but one copy are deleted at PF. Otherwise, the same token will precede and follow itself, which is not allowed. I adopted this approach for the analysis of Forward and Backward Control in Chapter 3, laying out the derivational history of each. In Chapter 4, I presented an analysis of Copy Control as an instance of multiple copy spell-out in which more than one copy of the same token is pronounced at PF. According to Nunes, such cases are allowed only if at least one of the nondistinct copies that are derived by movement undergoes fusion with another head. The copy and the head form a new phonological word. Since linearization cannot see into words, the fused copy becomes invisible and escapes deletion. In the case of Copy Control, I suggested that one of the copies escapes deletion by becoming part of a giant phonological word, a spelled-out domain. This scenario assumes that Multiple Spell-Out is derivationally possible (Uriagereka 1999) and that linearization applies cyclically, phase by phase (Fujii 2005). Finally, Assamese allows structures that are considered exceptions to Adjunct Control. These are structures that pattern the same as Adjunct Control structures, but they comprise disjoint subjects. I presented an analysis of these exceptions, suggesting that they are instances of Expletive Control that have the same derivational history as the other more common instances of Adjunct Control. The main difference is that Expletive Control structures are allowed only if the CNP and matrix clauses contain unaccusative predicates, in which case the subject positions are filled with null expletives. 2. Theoretical implications Analyzing Assamese Adjunct Control as movement gives rise to three theoretical issues. These are related to multiple Case checking, the nature of the pronounced copies in Copy Control structures, and the trigger for movement. Although discussed mainly in relation to Assamese Adjunct Control, these issues are related to control in general and have been the topic of research for over a decade (see Bobaljik and Landau 2009). The pre-

Theoretical implications

201

ceding chapters dealt with these issues and suggested solutions. The following sections highlight the main points of each. 2.1. Multiple Case checking Under the analysis adopted in this study, the CNP subject in an Adjunct Control structure checks Case in the CNP clause before it moves to the matrix clause, where it checks Case again. Although empirical evidence from other languages suggests that multiple Case checking is possible (e.g., Bejar and Massam 1999; Merchant 2006), one problem persists. Analyzing control as movement means arguing that control and raising are derivationally similar. Unlike control, however, raising does not involve multiple Case checking. To solve this problem, I proposed a principle called ThetaRole Visibility. As the formulation in (7) indicates, the principle holds that an argument is allowed to check one round of Case only if it takes on a theta-role. A moving element in a raising structure takes on one theta-role; this is why it checks one round of Case. A moving element in a control structure takes on two theta-roles; this is why it checks two rounds of Case. (7)

Theta-Role Visibility a. An argument is visible for one round of Case checking iff it merges into a thematic position. b. A round of Case comprises Inherent Case followed by Structural Case, depending on the availability of an appropriate licenser for each.

The following section deals with the second issue: the nature of the pronounced copies in Copy Control structures. 2.2. R-expressions vs. pronominals in Copy Control In Copy Control structures, the CNP subject has to be an R-expression, while the matrix subject may be a pronominal (a pronoun or an epithet) or an R-expression. Concerning the CNP subject, I showed that the restriction is language-specific because Assamese does not allow cataphoricity. In other words, given a structure that has two coreferential NPs, NP1 and NP2, such that NP1 linearly precedes NP2, if one of the NPs has to be an

202

Summary and conclusion

R-expression while the other has to be a pronominal, NP1 will be the Rexpression and NP2 the pronominal, but not the other way around. Regarding the matrix subject, I showed that the different choices are made possible by movement. Following Aoun, Choueiri, and Hornstein (2001) and Boeckx (2003), I suggested that pronounced pronominals (pronouns and epithets) that are the outcome of movement start out as adjuncts or appositives to another element, say, an R-expression. Unlike the aforementioned authors, who argue that a pronominal is stranded after the element it adjoins to has moved, (8), I suggested that the pronominal moves along with the moving element, (9). Decisions concerning whether to pronounce the R-expression or the pronominal are made at PF in accordance with the language-specific rules of cataphoricity and economy. (8)

[[SUBJ R-expression …]-[[SUBJ R-expression [Pronominal]] …]

(9)

[ [SUBJ R-expression [Pronominal]] …] [ [SUBJ R-expression [Pronominal]] …]

2.3. Why movement In the context of Minimalism, any approach that adopts movement as a central derivational mechanism has to explain why syntactic objects move. The more common instances of movement take place to satisfy a formal featural requirement of the moving element or of the target. Using data from Assamese, as well as from Mizo, Telugu, and Sinhala, I showed that the movement of the CNP subject in Adjunct Control is less conventional in this respect. I suggested that the CNP subject moves in order to license the merge of the CNP clause. 3. Concluding remarks In this study, I hope to have provided some answers to long-standing problems in control theory. At the same time, the study has given rise to an im-

Concluding remarks

203

portant question: If Assamese Adjunct Control is movement, as I hope to have successfully argued here, does this mean that control is movement cross-linguistically, or is there room for variation? Recent research seems to suggest that there is room for more than one theory of control – for example, PRO Theory and the Movement Theory of Control – and that the choice of one theory over another in a given language is parametric. See, for example, Davison 2008 and van Urk 2009 for arguments along these lines. Finally, if variation exists, is it really parametric, or is it due to interaction among a defined set of principles, as Henderson (2006), building on Newmeyer 2004 and Roberts and Holmberg 2005, would argue? Only more research on more languages can provide a more definitive answer.

Notes

Notes Chapter 1 1. The Indian subcontinent is home to at least four major language families, the other three being the Dravidian, Munda, and Sino-Tibetan families. 2. The EPP (the Extended Projection Principle) dictates that all clauses must have subjects. 3. Chomsky (2004) holds that feature checking can take place via Agree (a ccommand relationship between a probe and a goal) and that all movement happens for the purpose of satisfying the EPP. 4. The structure anachronistically contains vP, which was not available in the earlier versions of Government and Binding. 5. In his defense, Landau’s version of PRO Theory handles control into complements, to the exclusion of control into adjuncts. Landau (2000: 176–178; 2007: 304) holds that, unlike control into complements, Adjunct Control is sensitive to implicit and logophoric controllers, rendering a grammatical controller nonobligatory (see also Landau 2001: 139, fn. 12). Accordingly, following Williams (1992), he maintains that Adjunct Control is best analyzed as predication, whereby the adjunct is an unsaturated predicate (without a subject) that may be predicated of the subject in the matrix clause. That is, an Adjunct Control structure like (ia) is best analyzed as (ib). The adjunct necessarily has an open subject position. The coindexation between the adjunct clause and the matrix subject stands for predication and makes up for the lack of a subject in the adjunct. (i) a. b.

6.

Tom escaped after kissing Mary. Tomi escaped [after ____ kissing Mary] i

Given that Assamese Backward and Copy Control structures involve saturated adjuncts – i.e., adjuncts that obviously have a subject – we can conclude that Landau’s and Williams’s alternative approach to Adjunct Control as predication does not work for Assamese. See, however, Chapter 6, where I combine the propositional and predicational approaches to control in order to explain why the CNP subject in Adjunct Control has to move. Evidence for this affix comes from structures like (i) in which the lower copy of ‘Mike’ behaves like a reflexive pronoun. This phenomenon is attested in

Notes

205

Chinese, as Boeckx, Hornstein, and Nunes (2007) point out. For example, sentence (i) (from Lee 2003: 84, (1)) is similar to the Chinese example (ii). The only difference is that ‘-self’ in Chinese is overt, while in San Lucas Quiaviní Zapotec it is covert. (i) San Lucas Quiaviní Zapotec r-yu’lààa’z Gye’eihlly HABITUAL-like Mike ‘Mike likes himself.’ (ii) Chinese Mama hen xihuan Mother very like ‘Mom likes herself.’

Gye’eihlly Mike

mama-ziji Mother-self

Chapter 2 1. Aspect in Assamese can also be expressed by forming compound stems. One example is bɦ angi thak ‘break.nonfinite + stay’, which means ‘to break suddenly’. Notice that the main meaning lies in the first stem. The second stem is only aspectual, which is expected in a head-final language (Masica 1991: 270–271; Goswami and Tamuli 2003: 425–430). Chapter 3 1. One problem here is that Ram moves out of one Case position into another Case position. I deal with this problem in Section 5. 2. In Landau 2003, the embedded subject is presented as a t-trace. 3. Note that (67b) may be parsed as an instance of Forward Control. This is so because the CNP and matrix subjects are Case-marked alike. Consider (i), however. This sentence is the equivalent of (67b), except that the CNP object is scrambled past the subject. In this case, the subject has to belong to the subordinate clause because the CNP object cannot scramble past the boundaries of the adjunct. (i) [laybrarii-ki Kumaar weLL-i] [library-DAT Kumar.NOM go-CNP] pustakam cadiwaa-Du book read-3.M.S ‘Having gone to the library, Kumar read a book.’

Kumaar Kumar.NOM

206 4.

Notes This principle is the reverse of Case Visibility, which assumes that an argument must check Case in order to be visible for theta-role assignment (Chomsky and Lasnik 1995: 46, following Joseph Aoun).

Chapter 4 1. Aoun, Choueiri, and Hornstein (2001) label base-generated resumption as true resumption, and they consider resumption that is the outcome of movement as apparent resumption. Boeckx (2003), building on Sells 1984, generally agrees with Aoun, Choueiri, and Hornstein’s (2001) distinction, but he names the two types of resumption differently. He labels base-generated resumption as intrusive resumption and resumption that is the outcome of movement as true resumption. 2. Nunes (2001: 327–329) argues that “movement always proceeds from a subordinated to a subordinating domain.” Evidence comes from structures like (i) (Nunes 2001: 327–328, (62a) and (66a–b)). Sentence (ia) is ungrammatical because by the time borrow requires which book to undergo sideward movement, the PP without finding which book is already an island out of which movement is prohibited, (ib). “If the computational system could first start building the matrix derivational workspace before building an embedded derivational workspace, the sentence in [(ia)], for instance, would be incorrectly ruled in by a derivation where sideward movement proceeded from the object of borrow to the object of finding” (Nunes 2001: 329). (i) a. b. c. 3.

4.

5.

*Which book did you borrow after leaving the bookstore without finding? [CP PRO [vP [vP leaving the bookstore] [PP without PRO finding [which book]]]] borrow

The cases of resumption-as-movement presented by Aoun, Choueiri, and Hornstein (2001) and Boeckx (2003) also seem to obey the restriction that resumptive elements are pronominals that occupy a subordinated domain. This is because the authors argue for a stranding approach to resumption that is reminiscent of quantifier floating. I return to this issue in Section 6, where I suggest a nonstranding alternative. Another problem is related to movement: Why does movement take place? Is Case a sufficient reason for the subject to move? Chapter 6 provides a detailed answer to these questions. The argument excludes structures like (i) that allow disjoint subjects. Following Potsdam and Runner (2001), Fujii considers the matrix subject in such

Notes

207

constructions to be a thematic argument of the matrix verb. Accordingly, the structure does not involve raising. (i) Tom looks like someone has punched him in the face. 6.

7.

Fujii (2005: 22–26) offers an explanation for the fact that the lower copy is a pronominal rather than an exact copy of the matrix subject. Section 6 provides a alternative analysis. Fox and Pesetsky’s (2005) cyclic linearization and order preservation maintain that the order of the elements within each phase (or spell-out domain) is determined at the end of the phase by the operation Spell-Out, and that this order cannot be altered or contradicted later in the derivation. This approach works for the Assamese structures under investigation. Nevertheless, the details are orthogonal to the argument in the rest of this section, which is why I do not present them here. What is important for the purpose of this study is that Multiple Spell-Out is needed on independent grounds and is not an ad hoc stipulation used to account for Copy Control only. Two points about Fox and Pesetsky’s approach are in order, however. (i) The authors argue that move is actually re-merge rather than copy-plusmerge (Fox and Pesetsky 2005: 41); evidence from Copy Control, as well as other instances of multiple copy spell-out, shows that copy-plus-merge is superior to re-merge. (ii) The function of spell-out in Fox and Pesetsky’s system is to make sure that the order of the elements within each spell-out domain is preserved throughout the derivation. While this idea works well for Assamese Copy Control, an additional function of spell-out is needed: turning a spelledout domain into a lexical compound or a giant word, as Uriagereka (1999) and the rest of this section argues.

8.

If (i) and (ii) are added to Fox and Pesetsky’s system, cyclic linearization and order preservation become compatible with the present analysis without becoming incompatible with the Scandinavian data that the authors examine. According to Uriagereka (1999), spell-out applies to specific syntactic objects he calls command units. A command unit is a syntactic object that is derived through a “continuous application of Merge” – that is, through the extension of the same syntactic object via the Merge of a new element. For example, [x [y]] is a command unit. By contrast, “discontinuous application of Merge” (i.e., the Merge of two already formed command units) does not result in a command unit. For example, merging [x [y]] and [a [b]] results in

208

Notes

[[x [y]] [a [b]]], which is not a command unit. Following Chomsky (2000, 2001, 2004), however, I assume that Multiple Spell-Out is phase-based rather than command unit–based, and that a phase may be vP or CP, but not IP. The main reason behind this choice is that Phase Theory, at least as I understand it, offers more precise specifications concerning the edge of a spelled-out domain. For the purpose of my analysis, the edge of a spelled-out domain should remain active. Uriagereka, on the other hand, seems to imply that the whole command unit is syntactically inactive once spelled out. 9. Another solution is to consider PP a phase; in this case, [which paperb] moves to the edge of PP. 10. The discussion in this section depends on the standard assumption that CNP clauses are IPs, but crucially not CPs (Jayaseelan 2004). In other words, they are not phases. Further, for the purpose of the presentation here, I only focus on CP as a spell-out domain. Commonly, vP is also considered a phase. However, the study is concerned with subject NPs; these occupy the edge of vP and, thus, are still accessible even after vP is spelled out. 11. The restriction in (41) has benefited a lot from Grohmann’s (2003) Prolific Domains and the theory of Antilocality of Movement. Grohmann (2003: 309– 314) provides a similar, though not identical, formulation. Chapter 5 1. By “not unaccusative,” I mean not only transitive and unergative but also experiential predicates. For example, the sentences in (i) are ungrammatical because each contains one experiential predicate. (ii) a.

b.

2.

zui lag-i] *[e-ta ghɒ r-ot [one-CL house-LOC fire.ABS happen-CNP] khɒ ŋ uthil Ram-ɒ r Ram-GEN anger raised ‘A house burned and Ram got angry.’ khɒ ŋ uth-i] *[Ram-ɒ r [Ram-GEN anger raise-CNP] mɔ ril boɦ ut manuɦ many people.ABS died ‘Ram got angry and many people died.’

This chapter does not try to prove that null expletives are a reality. It simply assumes that they exist. For a convincing argument that null expletives are a psychological reality, see Oshita 2004 and works cited therein. Another piece

Notes

209

of evidence comes from languages in which null expletives may be phonologically realized as clitics. In Standard Arabic, for example, null expletives trigger agreement on the verb, which is normally the default 3.M.S, as (i) shows. Notice that a preverbal subject does not trigger full agreement on kaan-a waadˁ iħ-an ‘was clear’, as it would normally do with other nonraising predicates. Now observe (iii), in which the null expletive takes on a phonological form. This is possible only when the null expletive is in the vicinity of an element that may host a clitic (e.g., ʔanna ‘that’). waadˁ iħ-an ʔanna (i) proEXP kaan-a proEXP was-3.M.S clear-ACC that fariħ-uun happy-NOM.3.M.P ‘It was clear that the children were happy.’

l-ʔawlaad-a the-children-ACC

(ii) l-ʔawlaad-u proEXP kaan-a the-children-NOM proEXP was-3.M.S ʔanna-hum fariħ-uun that-3.M.P happy-NOM.3.M.P ‘It was clear that the children were happy.’

waadˁ iħ-an clear-ACC

kaan-a waadˁ iħ-an (iii) qult-u ʔanna-hu said-1.S that-3.M.S was-3.M.S clear-ACC fariħ-uun l-ʔawlaad-a the-children-ACC happy-NOM.3.M.P ‘I said that it was clear that the children were happy.’ 3.

4. 5.

ʔanna that

It is worth mentioning that the derivation in (43), especially as pertaining to the pronunciation/deletion of copies, is slightly different from the discussion in Hornstein 2001 and more in line with the discussion in Chapters 3 and 4 and Nunes’s (2004) Copy-plus-Merge Theory of Movement. Retrieved December 2009 from http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1053243 Sentences (52a–d) are random questions retrieved December 2009 from: http://answers.yahoo.com http://wiki.answers.com http://www.kaoticism.com

210

Notes

Chapter 6 1. Notice that in both (5a) and (5b) the tense of the adjunct is dependent on the tense of the matrix clause. Both have to be in the past if the matrix temporal information is past. Dubinsky and Hamano (2006) and Dubinsky (2007) use this observation to argue, contra Landau (2000, 2004), that Event rather than Tense is responsible for the Exhaustive-Partial Control distinction. According to Dubinsky and Hamano, only Exhaustive Control structures involve movement which is possible due to the lack of an Event Phrase in the subordinate clause. Partial Control structures comprise a subordinate clause that has an independent Event Phrase. As Dubinsky and Hamano put it, checking multiple theta-roles is possible within the same Event frame but not across Events. 2. According to Landau (2004: 833), Partial Control is the case when “the reference for PRO need not be exhausted by the reference of the controller.” To illustrate with English, in (ia) the unpronounced subject refers to the manager plus a particular group that the manager decided to work with. Compare with (ib), in which PRO can only refer to the manager. It cannot include other individuals. Sentence (ia) is an example of Partial Control, and sentence (ib) an example of Exhaustive Control. (i) a. b. 3.

4. 5.

6.

The manager decided [∆ to work on the project together]. The manager forgot [∆ to work on the project (*together)].

We can also assume with Rizzi (1997) that what is originally referred to as CP is actually divided into at least two parts: (i) one facing the outside, referred to as FORCEP, and (ii) one facing the inside, called FINP. Complementizers are realized in FORCEP, while information about finiteness resides in FINP. Knowing that CNP clauses are nonfinite, we can be quite certain that they project as high as FINP. Since they do not allow an overt complementizer, however, it is reasonable to assume that they do not project as high as FORCEP. Landau (2006: 167, fn. 9) provides a brief argument against this view. Chomsky’s (2000) idea was meant to describe the subordinate clauses in raising contructions. According to Chomsky, the subordinate clauses of control structures have a nondefective Tense feature that can check Null Case on the verb. Gair et al. (1998) analyze -la in (30) as homonymous with the CNP marker in (29). However, Taylor (2006) provides an elegant polysemy analysis of the Sinhala -la, capturing the aspectual perfective meaning that characterizes its different uses.

Notes 7.

211

The fact that the CNP clause in (30) is an independent clause with a nonfinite verb may sound bizarre. However, see Nikolaeva 2007 and works cited therein for evidence that finiteness and main clause status are not necessarily linked and that independent clauses may be nonfinite.

References

References Abbi, Anvita 1991 Experiential constructions and the ‘subjecthood’ of the experiencer NPs in South Asian languages. In Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languages, Manindra K. Verna and K. P. Mohanan (eds.), 253–268. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Adger, David 2003 Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. New York: Oxford University Press. Alboiu, Gabriela, and Virginia Motapanyane 2000 The generative approach to Romanian grammar: An overview. In Comparative Studies in Romanian Syntax, Virginia Motapanyane (ed.), 1–48. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Amritavalli, R., and Partha Protim Sarma 2002 A case distinction between unaccusative and unergative subjects in Assamese. Snippets 5: 6–7. Andrews, Avery D. 1990 The VP complement analysis in modern Icelandic. In Modern Icelandic Syntax, Joan Maling and Annie Zaenen (eds.), 165–185. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Aoun, Joseph, Lina Choueiri, and Norbert Hornstein 2001 Resumption, movement, and derivational economy. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 371–403. Arora, Habir Kaur, and Karumuri Venkata Subbarao 2004 Syntactic change and convergence. In Non-Nominative Subjects, Vol. 1, Peri Bhaskararao and Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds.), 25–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bejar, Susana, and Diane Massam 1999 Multiple case checking. Syntax 2: 65–79. Belletti, Adriana 1988 The case of unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 1–34. Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Idan Landau 2009 Icelandic control is not A-movement: The case from case. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 113–132.

References

213

Boeckx, Cedric 2003 Islands and Chains: Resumption as Stranding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Boeckx, Cedric, and Norbert Hornstein 2004 Movement under control. Natural Language Semantics 14: 1–56. Boeckx, Cedric, and Norbert Hornstein 2006 Control in Icelandic and theories of control. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 591–606. Boeckx, Cedric, Norbert Hornstein, and Jairo Nunes 2007 Overt copies in reflexive and control structures: A movement analysis. In University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 15, Anastasia Conroy, Chunyuan Jing, Chizuru Nakao, and Eri Takahashi (eds.), 1–46. College Park, MD: University of Maryland, Department of Linguistics. Boeckx, Cedric, Norbert Hornstein, and Jairo Nunes 2010 Icelandic control really Is A-movement: Reply to Bobaljik and Landau. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 111–130. Bošković, Željko 1994 D-Structure, θ-Criterion, and movement into θ-positions. Linguistic Analysis 24: 247–286. Bošković, Željko 1997 The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation: An Economy Approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Brody, Michael 1993 Theta-Theory and arguments. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 1–23. Brody, Michael 1995 Lexico-Logical Form: A Radically Minimalist Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam 1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam 1981 Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Noam 1986a Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam 1986b Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger. Chomsky, Noam 1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

214

References

Chomsky, Noam 1998 Minimalist inquiries: The framework. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15. Cambridge, MA: MIT, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Chomsky, Noam 2000 Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka (eds.), 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam 2001 Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–50. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam 2004 Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 3, Adriana Belletti (ed.), 104– 131. New York: Oxford University Press. Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik 1995 The theory of principles and parameters. In Chomsky 1995. Chung, Sandra 1978 Case Marking and Grammatical Relations in Polynesian. Austin: University of Texas Press. Cinque, Guglielmo 1990 Types of A'-Dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Culicover, Peter, and Ray Jackendoff 2001 Control is not movement. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 493–512. Davison, Alice 1981 Syntactic and semantic indeterminacy resolved: A mostly pragmatic analysis for the Hindi conjunctive participle. In Radical Pragmatics, Peter Cole (ed.), 101–128. New York: Academic Press. Davison, Alice 1993 Controlled experiencer subjects: Implications for phrase structure. South Asian Language Review 3: 46–58. Davison, Alice 2008 A case restriction on control: Implications for movement. Journal of South Asian Linguistics 1: 29–54. du Plessis, Hans 1977 Wh-movement in Afrikaans. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 723–726. Dubinsky, Stanley 2007 On the syntax of exhaustive control and the calculus of events. Paper presented at the 81st annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Anaheim, CA.

References

215

Dubinsky, Stanley, and Shoko Hamano 2006 A window into the syntax of control: Event opacity in Japanese and English. In University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 15, 73–97. College Park, MD: University of Maryland, Department of Linguistics. Dwarikesh, Dwarika Prasad 1971 The historical syntax of the conjunctive participial phrase in the new Indo-Aryan dialects of the Madhyadesha (“Midland”) of northern India. Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago. Edwards, Keri Michon 2003 Agency, individuation, and affectedness: Basic clause structure in Assamese with special attention to grammatical relations and their semantic correlates. MA thesis, University of Oregon. Evans, Nicholas 2005 Multiple case in Kayardild: Anti-iconic suffix ordering and the diachronic filter. In Double Case: Agreement by Suffixaufnahme, Frans Plank (ed.), 396–428. New York: Oxford University Press. Fox, Danny, and David Pesetsky 2005 Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics 31: 1–45. Franks, Steven, and Željko Bošković 2001 An argument for multiple spell-out. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 174–183. Fujii, Tomohiro 2005 Cycle, linearization of chains, and multiple case checking. In Proceedings of Console XIII, Sylvia Blaho, Luis Vicente, and Erik Schoorlemmer (eds.), 39–65. Leiden: Leiden University Centre for Linguistics. Gair, James W. 2003 Sinhala. In The Indo-Aryan Languages, George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain (eds.), 766–817. London: Routledge. Gair, James W., Barbara Lust, Lelwala Sumangala, and Milan Rodrigo 1998 Acquisition of null subjects and control in some Sinhala adverbial clauses. In Studies in South Asian Linguistics: Sinhala and Other South Asian Languages, Barbara Lust (ed.), 271–285. New York: Oxford University Press. Goswami, Golockchandra 1982 Structure of Assamese. Calcutta: Gauhati University, Department of Publication. Goswami, Golockchandra, and Jyotiprakash Tamuli 2003 Asamiya. In The Indo-Aryan Languages, George Cardona and Dhanesh Jain (eds.), 391–443. London: Routledge.

216

References

Grimshaw, Jane 1990 Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Grohmann, Kleanthes 2003 Prolific Domains: On the Anti-Locality of Movement Dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Haddad, Youssef A. 2007 Adjunct Control in Telugu and Assamese. Ph.D. diss., University of Florida in Gainesville. Haddad, Youssef A. 2009a Copy Control in Telugu. Journal of Linguistics 45: 69–109. Haddad, Youssef A. 2009b Adjunct Control in Telugu: Exceptions as non-exceptions. Journal of South Asian Linguistics 2: 35–51. Haddad, Youssef A. 2010a A non-stranding approach to resumption: Evidence from South Asia. The Linguistic Review 27: 107–129. Haddad, Youssef A. 2010b Why things may move: Evidence from (circumstantial) control. Journal of South Asian Linguistics 3: 45–63. Haddad, Youssef A., and Eric Potsdam To appear Linearizing the control relation: A typology. In Principles of Linearization, Theresa Biberauer and Ian Roberts (eds.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz 1993 Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Harley, Heidi 1995 Hug a tree: Deriving the morphosyntactic feature hierarchy. In Papers on Phonology and Morphology, Andrew Carnie and Heidi Harley (eds.), 189–230. Cambridge, MA: MIT, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Haspelmath, Martin 1995 The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. In Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Martin Haspelmath and Ekkehard König (eds.), 1–56. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Henderson, Brent 2006 The syntax and typology of Bantu relative clauses. Ph.D. diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

References

217

Heycock, Caroline 1994 Layers of Predication: The Non-Lexical Syntax of Clauses. Garland: New York. Heycock, Caroline, and Edit Doron 2003 Categorical subjects. Gengo Kenkyu 123: 95–135. Hiemstra, Inge 1986 Some aspects of wh-questions in Frisian. North-Western European Language Evolution 8: 97–110. Higginbotham, James 1987 Indefiniteness and predication. In The Representation of (In)definiteness, Eric J. Reuland and Alice ter Meulen (eds.), 43–70. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hornstein, Norbert 1999 Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69–96. Hornstein, Norbert 2001 Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal: Generative Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell. Hornstein, Norbert 2003 On control. In Minimalist Syntax, Randall Hendrick (ed.), 6–81. Oxford: Blackwell. Hornstein, Norbert, and Hirohisa Kiguchi 2001 PRO gate and sideward movement. Paper presented at the Conference on the Syntax and Semantics of Semitic Languages and associated workshops, University of Southern California. Hornstein, Norbert, Jairo Nunes, and Kleanthes Grohmann 2005 Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jackendoff, Ray, and Peter Culicover 2003 The semantic basis of control in English. Language 79: 517–556. Jansen, Joana Worth 2004 Complementation strategies in Assamese with particular consideration of the historical sources and development of the Assamese infinitive. MA thesis, University of Oregon. Jayaseelan, K. A. 2004 The serial verb construction in Malayalam. In Clause Structure in South Asian Languages, Veneeta Dayal and Anoop Mahajan (eds.), 67–91. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Kandybowicz, Jason 2006 Conditions on multiple copy spell-out and the syntax-phonology interface. Ph.D. diss., University of California at Los Angeles.

218

References

Kayne, Richard 1994 The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kehler, Andrew 1996 Coherence and the Coordinate Structure Constraint. Paper presented at the 22nd annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley. Klaiman, Miriam H. 1981 Volitionality and subject in Bengali: A study of semantic parameters in grammatical processes. Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago. Ko, Heejeong 2007 Asymmetries in scrambling and cyclic linearization. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 49–83. Koopman, Hilda 1984 The Syntax of Verbs. Dordrecht: Foris. Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965 Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Ph.D. diss., MIT (reprinted by New York: Garland, 1979). Kuroda, S.-Y. 1978 Case-marking, canonical sentence patterns, and counter-equi in Japanese. In Problems in Japanese Syntax and Semantics, John Hinds (ed.), 30–51. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. Lakoff, George 1986 Frame semantic control of the Coordinate Structure Constraint. Paper presented at the 22nd annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago. Landau, Idan 2000 Elements of Control. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Landau, Idan 2001 Control and extraposition: The case of super-equi. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 109–152. Landau, Idan 2003 Movement out of control. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 471–498. Landau, Idan 2004 The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 811–877. Landau, Idan 2006 Severing the distribution of PRO from Case. Syntax 9: 153–170. Landau, Idan 2007 Movement-resistant aspects of control. In New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising, William D. Davies and Stanley Dubinsky (eds.), 293–325. Dordrecht: Springer.

References

219

Landau, Idan 2009 The locative syntax of experiencers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lasnik, Howard 1992 Two notes on control and binding. In Control and Grammar, Richard K. Larson, Sabine Iatridou, Utpal Lahiri, and James Higginbotham (eds.), 235–252. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Lasnik, Howard 1995 Last Resort and Attract F. In Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Formal Linguistics Society of Mid-America, 62–81. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Lasnik, Howard 2002 Minimalist Investigations in Linguistic Theory. New York: Routledge. Lee, Felicia 2003 Anaphoric R-expressions as bound variables. Syntax 6: 84–114. Lindholm, James Milton 1975 The conceptual basis of the Tamil adverbial participle. Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago. Manzini, Rita, and Anna Roussou 2000 A minimalist approach to A-movement and control. Lingua 110: 409–447. Marantz, Alec 1995 The Minimalist Program. In Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program: Principles and Parameters in Syntactic Theory, Gert Webelhuth (ed.), 351–382. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Martin, Roger 1996 A Minimalist theory of PRO and control. Ph.D. diss., University of Connecticut. Martin, Roger 2001 Null Case and the distribution of PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 141– 166. Masica, Colin P. 1991 The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Masica, Colin P. 2005 Defining a Linguistic Area. New Delhi: Chronicle Books. McCloskey, James 2005 Resumption. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol. 4, Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), 94–117. Oxford: Blackwell.

220

References

McDaniel, Dana 1986 Conditions on wh-chains. Ph.D. diss., The City University of New York. Merchant, Jason 2006 Polyvalent case, geometric hierarchies, and split ergativity. Paper presented at the 42nd annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago. Mohanan, Tara 1994 Argument Structure in Hindi. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Monahan, Philip 2003 Backward object control in Korean. Paper presented at the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 22, University of California, San Diego. Müller, Gereon 2000 Shape conservation and remnant movement. Paper presented at the 30th annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, Rutgers University. Nath, Diganta 2001 Case in Assamese. MPhil diss., Center Institute of English and Foreign Languages, Hyderabad, India. Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2004 Against a parameter-setting approach to language variation. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 4: 181–234. Nikolaeva, Irina (ed.) 2007 Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nunes, Jairo 1995 The Copy Theory of Movement and linearization of chains in the Minimalist Program. Ph.D. diss., University of Maryland. Nunes, Jairo 2001 Sideward movement. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 303–344. Nunes, Jairo 2004 Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Nunes, Jairo, and Juan Uriagereka 2000 Cyclicity and extraction domains. Syntax 3: 20–43. O’Neil, John 1995 Out of control. Paper presented at the 25th annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, University of Massachusetts.

References

221

O’Neil, John 1997 Means of control: Deriving the properties of Control Theory in the Minimalist Program. Ph.D. diss., Harvard University. Oshita, Hiroyuki 2004 Is there anything there when there is not there: Null expletives and second language data. Second Language Research 20: 95–130. Ouhalla, Jamal 1999 Introducing Transformational Grammar: From Principles and Parameters to Minimalism. New York: Oxford University Press. Pandharipande, Rajeshwari V. 1997 Marathi. New York: Routledge. Pesetsky, David 1998 Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation. In Is the Best Good Enough?, Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis, and David Pesetsky (eds.), 337–384. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego 2001 T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 355–426. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego 2006 Probes, goals, and syntactic categories. Paper presented at the 7th annual Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, Keio University, Japan. Polinsky, Maria, and Eric Potsdam 2002 Backward Control. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 245–282. Polinsky, Maria, and Eric Potsdam 2003 Control in Malagasy. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 19: 173–187. Polinsky, Maria, and Eric Potsdam 2004 Malagasy control and its theoretical implications. Paper presented at the 30th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley. Polinsky, Maria, and Eric Potsdam 2006 Expanding the scope of control and raising. Syntax 9: 171–192. Postal, Paul M. 1974 On Raising: One Rule of English Grammar and Its Theoretical Implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

222

References

Potsdam, Eric 2006 Backward object control in Malagasy: Against an empty category analysis. In WCCFL 25: Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Donald Baumer, David Montero, and Michael Scanlon (eds.), 328–336. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Potsdam, Eric 2009 Malagasy Backward Object Control. Language 85: 754–784. Potsdam, Eric, and Jeffrey Runner 2001 Richard returns: Copy raising and its implications. In Chicago Linguistic Society 37: 453–468. Chicago: University of Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society. Rizzi, Luigi 1997 The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Roberts, Ian, and Anders Holmberg 2005 On the role of parameters in Universal Grammar: A reply to Newmeyer. In Organizing Grammar: Linguistic Studies in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny Huybregts, Ursula Kleinhenz, and Jan Koster (eds.), 538–553. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Rodriguez, Cilene A. N. 2004 Impoverished morphology and A-movement out of case domains. Ph.D. diss., University of Maryland. Rogers, Andy 1971 Three kinds of physical perception verbs. Paper presented at the 17th annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago. Rosenbaum, Peter S. 1967 The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ross, John R. 1967 Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. diss., MIT. Rothstein, Susan 2001 Predicates and Their Subjects. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Roussou, Anna 2001 Control and raising in and out of subjunctive complements. In Comparative Syntax of Balkan Languages, Maria-Luisa Rivero and Angela Rali (eds.), 74–104. New York: Oxford University Press.

References

223

San Martin, Itziar 2004 On subordination and the distribution of PRO. Ph.D. diss., University of Maryland. Sells, Peter 1984 Syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns. Ph.D. diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Shlonsky, Ur 1992 Resumptive pronouns as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 443– 468. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann 1991 Icelandic case-marked PRO and the licensing of lexical arguments. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 327–363. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann 2004 Icelandic non-nominative subjects. In Non-Nominative Subjects, Vol. 2, Peri Bhaskararao and Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds.), 137– 160. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann 2008 The case of PRO. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 403– 450. Stowell, Tim 1991 Small clause restructuring. In Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, Robert Freidin (ed.), 182–218. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Subbarao, Karumuri Venkata 2004 Tense and case in backward control in Mizo, Telugu, and Assamese. Handout, University of Delhi and University of Hamburg. Subbarao, Karumuri Venkata, and Habir Kaur Arora 2005 The conjunctive participle in Dakkhini Hindi-Urdu: Making the best of both worlds. Paper presented at Prof. M. B. Emeneau Centenary International Conference on South Asian Linguistics. http://www.ciil.org/Main/Announcement/MBE_Programme/Keynote .htm (last retrieved December 2009). Szabolcsi, Anna 1994 The noun phrase. In The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian. Syntax and Semantics 27, Ferenc Kiefer and Katalin É. Kiss (eds.), 179– 275. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Taylor, Chris 2006 Perfect, sequence, recapitulation: common construal and the Sinhala conjunctive participle. In Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics 17, Robert Englebretson and Carol Genetti (eds.), 150–162. Santa Barbara: University of California, Department of Linguistics.

224 Uriagereka, Juan 1999 Multiple Spell-Out. In Working Minimalism, Samuel David Esptein and Norbert Hornstein (eds.), 251–282. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vergnaud, Jean-Roger 1982 Dépendances et niveaux de représentation en syntaxe. Ph.D. diss., Université de Paris VII. Watanabe, Akira 1996 Case Absorption and Wh-Agreement. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Webelhuth, Gert 1992 Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation. New York: Oxford University Press. Williams, Edwin 1980 Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 203–238. Williams, Edwin 1992 Adjunct Control. In Control and Grammar, Richard K. Larson, Sabine Iatridou, Utpal Lahiri, and James Higginbotham (eds.), 297– 322. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Woolford, Ellen 2006 Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 111–130. van Urk, Coppe 2009 On obligatory control. Ms., Utrecht University. Yoon, James H. 2004 Non-nominative (major) subjects and case stacking in Korean. In Non-Nominative Subjects, Vol. 2, Karumuri Venkata Subbarao and Peri Bhaskararao (eds.), 265–314. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Index Ind Afrikaans, 122, 214 Arabic, 15, 16, 142, 209 Lebanese, 142 Standard, 16, 209 asymmetry, 23, 86–87

Copy Theory of Movement, 19, 22, 85, 117 Copy-plus-Merge Theory of Movement, 85, 209 cyclic merge, 166–175

Backward Control. See control Bengali, 47–48, 56–57, 66–67, 152–153, 218

Dakkhini, 148–149, 224 Deep Structure, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 18 derived predicates. See predicate Distributed Morphology, 123, 217

Case Inherent, 32, 52, 68, 70–79, 81, 91, 94, 98–101, 105–113, 176, 201 Structural, 32, 53, 67–74, 79, 95–96, 98–101, 104–109, 176–177, 187, 201 Case Filter, 7, 12, 99 cataphoricity, 146 Chain Reduction, 24–29, 85–98, 108– 109, 117–118, 120–121, 117–134, 173, 188 Condition C, 146 control Backward, 2–3, 22, 29–30, 46–47, 51–55, 63, 67, 69–110, 111, 115, 117, 119, 126, 134–136, 150, 176–178, 187–188, 192–193, 198–200, 222 Copy, 2–3, 18, 20, 22, 28–30, 46–47, 55, 56–65, 68, 79, 93–94, 99, 111–150, 168–169, 173, 176, 186–187, 198–201, 204, 207, 216 Exhaustive, 183–186, 210 Expletive, 29, 151–175, 178, 200 Forward, 1–3, 20, 22, 30, 47–51, 55, 63, 69–110, 163, 177, 188, 198, 205 Movement Theory of, 4, 15, 18–21, 28, 69, 99, 169, 177, 197, 203 Partial, 184, 186, 210 PRO Theory of, 4, 12, 15, 19, 101, 102, 169, 186, 188, 203, 204 Coordinate Structure Constraint, 42– 44 Copy Control. See control copy raising. See raising

economy, 8, 24, 27, 149, 202, 212 Enlightened Self-Interest, 176–179, 188, revisited, 194 Exhaustive Control. See control experiential predicates. See predicate Expletive Control. See control Extension Condition, 138, 139, 164, 166, 170–172 Form Chain, 24–25, 29, 85–90, 117, 120, 121, 125–134, 173 Formal Feature Elimination, 25 Forward Control. See control Frisian, 26, 27, 217 Full Interpretation, 6, 17, 19 fusion, 27, 133, 134, 200 Greek, 16 Hebrew, 193, 194 Hindi, 66, 71, 72, 100, 152, 214, 224 Icelandic, 15, 17, 100, 102–105, 108– 109, 162, 186, 197, 212–213, 224 Inherent Case. See Case inherent predicates. See predicate irreflexivity, 23, 26, 86–87 Japanese, 2, 126, 179, 180, 215, 219 Kayardild, 100, 215 Konkani, 47, 56, 57, 148, 149 Korean, 2, 100, 126, 127, 221, 226 late merge, 163–168

226

Index

Linear Correspondence Axiom, 23–27, 86, 88, 117, 120–122, 126–128, 131, 133, 134 Look Ahead, 194 Malagasy, 2, 98, 126, 222–223 Marathi, 47, 56, 66, 152, 222 Minimal Link Condition, 21, 24 Mizo, 51, 176, 177, 187, 202, 224 Movement Theory of Control. See control multiple Case checking, 69, 99–110, 138, 165, 200, 201 multiple copy spell-out, 4, 22–28, 122– 126, 132–134, 200, 218 Multiple Spell-Out, 126–136, 200, 207, 225 Nupe, 122 parasitic gaps, 85 Partial Control. See control phase, 18, 124–129, 132–133, 150, 173, 192, 200, 207–208, 214 Phase Impenetrability Condition, 124– 126 precedence, 23, 26, 100, 117, 120–121, 125–127, 131, 133–134, 168, 173, 200 predicate derived, 190, 193 experiential, 34, 36–37, 57–58, 208 inherent, 190, 192 Licensing Condition, 190 unaccusative, 33, 156–157, 175, 200 predication, 189–190, 193, 204, 217 PRO Theory of Control. See control Projection Principle, 5–6, 18, 204 prolific domains, 208 discourse, 139 phi, 139 thematic, 139

raising, 99, 101–110, 123, 126–133, 183, 201, 207, 209–210, 222–224 copy raising, 123–130 remnant movement. See sideward movement resumption, 115–117, 122, 141–149, 206, 213, 216 Romanian, 15, 16, 183, 184, 212 San Lucas Quiaviní Zapotec, 26, 27, 205 sideward movement, 28, 69, 85–88, 98– 99, 116, 121, 136–140, 160–165, 167, 169, 170, 179, 182, 199, 206, 218, 221 and remnant movement, 89, 90, 221 target of, 136–141, 163–166 unwanted, 121, 131 Sinhala, 176, 189, 195–197, 202, 210, 216, 225 Standard Arabic. See Arabic Structural Case. See Case Surface Structure, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 Tamil, 66, 152, 154, 220 Telugu, 2, 51–56, 70–72, 76–77, 96, 98, 106–108, 117, 126, 145, 148–149, 152–153, 155, 176–177, 181– 183, 185, 187–188, 202, 216, 224 Theta Criterion, 5, 13, 14, 18 Theta-Role Visibility, 106– 110, 201 Tongan, 2 Tsez, 2, 126 Vata, 122