Backward Control

Abstract

This article documents and analyzes a pattern of backward subject control in the Nakh-Daghestanian language Tsez. In backward control two subject arguments are coindexed but it is the higher subject that is unpronounced: ⌬ i tried [John i to leave]. The principles-and-parameters framework (Chomsky and Lasnik 1993) explicitly rules out backward control. In contrast, recent minimalist analyses of control (e.g., Hornstein 1999) permit backward control because they allow movement from one thematic position to another. Backward control results if this movement takes place covertly. We argue that the phenomenon thus provides interesting evidence for the reduction of control to movement.

A grammar of Yakkha

“…This means that in cases of shared reference it is not necessarily the embedded argument that is omitted, but rather the matrix argument (discussed below). Such structures are known as backward control, and received attention in the literature on control phenomena especially after an article on the Nakh-Dagestanian language Tsez by Polinsky & Potsdam (2002).…”

The syntax and semantics of wanting in Indonesian

“…Such a structure instantiates backward control (Polinsky and Potsdam, 2002): an overt argument in a complement clause is coindexed with and determines the interpretation of a silent expression in a higher clause. This is the opposite of the ordinary control relationship between the empty category and its antecedent seen in (24).…”

“…We start with (30a). In general, providing evidence for the silent element in the matrix clause co-indexed with an overt DP in the lower clause is crucial for establishing backward control, and the more compelling cases of backward control, such as Tsez (Polinsky and Potsdam, 2002) or Malagasy (Potsdam, 2006), rely on such evidence. In Indonesian, binding facts suggest that there is no empty category.…”

Partial Control is Trickier Than We Thought

“…Put differently, is 3 I use the conventional null pronoun PRO in lieu of the subject for purely expository reasons, but it may as well be the case that PRO is phantasm, control being reduced to raising (e.g. Hornstein 1999;Manzini and Roussou 2000;Pires 2001;Polinsky and Potsdam 2002;Hornstein 2003;Bowers 2005) or requiring only a de-composition of θ-roles (Janke 2008). On the whole, it is rather surprising that PRO at all functions in a minimalist setting taking into consideration the fact that GB-era (which posited PRO) is something of anachronism these (Minimalism-oriented) syntactic days.…”