In the mood for control

Roussou, Anna

doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2008.11.010

Cited by 54 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, oti-complements can be separated from the verb by different elements; na must be adjacent to its selecting verb, with only the possibility of a negative element intervening. 9 Roussou (2009) distinguishes between the verb types which select for each complement clause. Following is the set of predicate types which take na complements.…”

Section: Control and No Control In Modern Greekmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unlike the infinitive, the subjunctive predicate in a na-clause is a finite form, which fully agrees (in person and number) with its understood subject. Some predicates, such as matheno 'learn', select controlled subjunctives (C-subjunctives, or OC), which require the understood subject to be coreferential with the matrix subject (16a), while others such as thelo 'want' select free subjunctives (F-subjunctives, or NC) which are not controlled, and allow for both a coreferential interpretation and a non-coreferential one (16b Roussou (2009) claims that of the predicate types listed above, modals and aspectuals enforce obligatory coreference of the subject of their na-complements. As for the volitionals, Roussou notes that the category is rather vague, and is interpreted differently by different researchers.…”

Section: Control and No Control In Modern Greekmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Seeking control in Modern Standard Arabic

Greshler

Melnik

Wintner

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) has several embedded clause constructions, some of which resemble control in English (and other languages). However, these constructions exhibit some notable differences. Chief among them is the fact that the embedded verb carries agreement features that can indicate both coreference and disjoint reference between a matrix argument and the subject of the complement clause. Through a corpus-based investigation, informed by previous insights regarding the distinction between control and no control, we found no evidence of obligatory control predicates in MSA; these findings contradict accepted generalizations (and predictions) proposed by state-of-the-art theories of control. Nevertheless, although no obligatory control predicates were found, the backward pattern, where the single expressed subject occurs in the embedded clause, revealed morphosyntactic reflexes of the control vs. no control distinction. Coreference between the expressed embedded subject and the unexpressed matrix subject was found to be restricted to a set of predicates. The existence of backward control and its relation to the backward raising construction, also found in MSA, are especially relevant for current debates regarding the theory of control. We propose an analysis that ties together control, raising and restructuring.

show abstract

Section: Control and No Control In Modern Greekmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Control and No Control In Modern Greekmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seeking control in Modern Standard Arabic

Greshler

Melnik

Wintner

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, as seen in (16), Greek behaves like Spanish and Hebrew in that want enables future oriented complements (16a) and try enables (future-oriented) non-control complements (16c). Unlike Spanish and Hebrew (and for that matter English), though, Greek also enables future orientation with control try, as witnessed in (16b) which is taken from Roussou (2009Roussou ( : 1826 Where does this leave us? Taking a step back, if the behavior of try with respect to the availability of control vs. non-control complements and the availability of simultaneous vs. future-oriented complements were independent of one another, then we would expect that in a given language, try with a control complement could be either simultaneous, future-oriented, or ungrammatical; and independently of that, try with a non-control complement could similarly be either simultaneous, future-oriented, or ungrammatical.…”

Section: Two Other Patternsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Greek (Roussou 2009(Roussou : 1826 O Kostas arxise simera [na odhiji PRO (#avrio)]. the Kostas began.3sg today sbjv drive.3sg tomorrow 'Kostas began today to drive (tomorrow).…”

Section: (58)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Control, temporal orientation, and the cross-linguistic grammar of <i>trying</i>

Grano

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The verb try plays a starring role in many example sentences in the control literature. But one of its most basic properties has eluded satisfying explanation: for many speakers of English, try rejects non-control infinitival complements, as in %I tried for John to notice me or %John tried for there to be food on the table. A number of scholars have hypothesized that this fact about try has a semantic basis, but this hypothesis has yet to be fully reconciled with the problem of crossdialectal and cross-linguistic variation and with existing formal semantic approaches to trysentences. In this paper, based in part on a novel observation from Spanish and Hebrew about how try's complement type interacts with its temporal orientation, I aim to further substantiate the semantic approach to try's behavior. The proposal is couched in an explicit compositional treatment of the formal semantics of try-sentences, whereby non-control try-sentences induce a presupposition failure which can be repaired in some languages via a coercion mechanism that is independently detectable in that in some languages it enables a future orientation for the complement. The implication is that cross-linguistic variation in the inventory of coercion mechanisms obscures an underlyingly principled semantic basis for try's behavior.

show abstract

“…More recent comparative studies about mood and modality can be found in Palmer (2001), Quer (2009), Roussou (2009), Giorgi (2009), Siegel (2009), Giannakidou (2009, Kempchinsky (2009) and the volume edited by B. Rothstein & R. Thieroff (2010) about mood in the languages of Europe, with articles by Thieroff, Bergs/ Heine, De Mulder, Becker, Laca, Quer, and Squartini. This article compares some uses of the present subjunctive (Spanish) and the Konjunktiv I (German) in noun clauses in order to find out if there is a common denominator and what distinguishes the usage in the two languages.…”

Section: Mood -A Universal Category?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The subjunctive, a marker of 'subordinance'? A comparison between German and Spanish

Busch

2014

Borealis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. By comparing Spanish and German, it can be shown that the subjunctive in Spanish (as well as in German) has only a very general grammatical meaning. This meaning can be called 'procedural,' and is defined as 'subordinance' (= syntactic and semantic subordination under the main predicate or another explicit or implicit contextual element) or 'contextual alternative.' In both languages the subjunctive/Konjunktiv is used in noun, adjective and adverb, as well as (pseudo)independent, clauses. This article compares only noun clauses. The focus is on the present subjunctive/Konjunktiv I. It is used in German in direct noun clauses and clauses that are introduced by the conjunction dass ('that'). In direct noun clauses, the Konjunktiv I is mandatory in distinguishing direct and reported (indirect) speech. In clauses introduced by dass, the element 'reported speech' is signaled by the conjunction and followed by the typical word order with the finite verb at the end of the sentence. Therefore, especially in spoken German, there is a strong tendency to use the indicative in this case. Another use of the Konjunktiv I in German is after wishes. In direct noun clauses, the use of the Konjunktiv I is rare and also signals indirect speech. The Konjunktiv I is often replaced by the Konjunktiv II (past subjunctive), but especially with dass-clauses and the indicative.Keywords. Mood, Subjunctive, Konjunktiv, Subordination, Contextual alternative, Spanish, German RESUMEN. Mediante una comparación con el alemán, vamos a mostrar que el subjuntivo en español (tal como en alemán) tiene solo un significado gramatical muy general, que se ha calificado de 'procedural', y que vamos a definir como 'subordinancia' (subordinación sintáctica y semántica bajo el predicado principal u otro elemento contextual explícito o implícito) o 'alternativa contextual'. En ambas lenguas, el subjuntivo/Konjunktiv se puede usar en cláusulas nominales, adjetivales, adverbiales, tal como en cláusulas (pseudo)independientes. En este artículo solo se compara el uso en cláusulas nominales. Además se centra en el Konjunktiv I, que en alemán se puede usar en cláusulas nominales directas y cláusulas introducidas por la conjunción dass ('que'). En cláusulas nominales directas, el Konjunktiv I es obligatorio para distinguir el habla directa de la indirecta. En cláusulas introducidas por dass, el elemento 'habla indirecta' es señalado por la conjunción y el orden de palabras típico con el verbo conjugado al final de la oración. Por eso, particularmente en alemán hablado, hay una tendencia muy I would like to thank the editor and reviewers of Borealis for their extensive comments on the first draft of this article that were very useful in the preparation of the final manuscript. I also would like to thank Ruth Tauber for checking the English part of this article. I am responsible for any remaining errors or omissions.

show abstract

In the mood for control

Cited by 54 publications

References 33 publications

Seeking control in Modern Standard Arabic

Seeking control in Modern Standard Arabic

Control, temporal orientation, and the cross-linguistic grammar of <i>trying</i>

The subjunctive, a marker of 'subordinance'? A comparison between German and Spanish

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About