Avdeling for nordisk språk og litteratur

R­skrift

Arbeidsskrift for nordisk språk og litteratur

Nr. 89/1996

Redaksjonskomite: Harald Bache-Wiig, Kristian Emil Kristoffersen Gunnar Sivertsen, Arne Torp

NORskrift. Arbeidsskrift for nordisk språk og litteratu.r blir utgitt av Avdeling for nordisk språk og litteratur, Institutt for nordistikk og litteraturvitskap, Universitetet i Oslo. Spørsmål om abonnement kan rettast til Ellen Wingerei, telefon 22 85 70 13.

Adressa til redaksjonen er Avdeling for nordisk språk og litteratur Institutt for nordistikk og litteraturvitskap Boks 1013 Blindern 0315 Oslo

ISSN 0800.7764

INNHOLD

KRISTIAN EMIL KRISTOFFERSEN:

Kontroll og kontrollteoriar ................................................................. 7

JANENGH:

On Control. ....................................................................................... 19

JANENGH:

Uncontrolled PR Os without Arbitrary Reference ............................. .49

JANENGH:

Postludium ....................................................................................... .52

JAN ENGH AND KRISTIAN EMIL KRISTOFFERSEN:

Control - A Bibliography ................................................................. .53

Kontroll og kontrollteoriar

KRISTIAN EMIL KRISTOFFERSEN

Setningar som dei i (l) oppviser ein type referensielle relasjonar mellom

to element som i særleg den generative lingvistiske litteraturen blir referert til ved termen "kontroll". 1

(l) a. Kari ønska å lære fransk. b. Kari bad Ola om å lære seg fransk. c. Ola nekta Kari å lære seg fransk.

d. Ola lova Kari å lære henne fransk.

Generelt kan me karakterisere kontroll som ein semantisk og/ eller ein grammatisk relasjon mellom eit underforstått (dvs. uuttrykt) subjekt til

eit predikat, og eit ledd i den lingvistiske konteksten som dette underforståtte subjektet er koreferent med. I (la) er det logiske subjektet for infinitiven lære koreferent med subjektet for det overordna verbet.

Me seier at det overordna subjektet KONTROLLERER infinitivssubjektet.

Det overordna leddet kan me kalle KONTROLLØR (etter engelsk

"controller"). I (lb og c) er det objektet til det overordna verbet som er kontrollør; dette leddet er altså koreferent med det underforståtte subjektet. I (ld) er det igjen subjektet som er kontrollør.

l KONTROLL OG KONTROLLØRVAL Avhengig av teoretisk ståstad er det blitt lagt ulike perspektiv på

kontrollfenomenet, noko som ofte fører til at forskjellige problemstillingar blir vektlagde. Eit eksempel er Parkas (1988:27-28,

I Ikkje bare infinitivsfrasar, men også gerundium, i språk som har slike verbformer, kan vere kontrollerte, jf. f.eks. Harry talked to Bill about kissing Greta (frå Postal1970:470).

Kristian Emil Kristoffersen er stipendiat ved Avdeling for leksikografi, Institutt for nordistikk og litteraturvitenskap, Universitetet i Oslo

8 Kristian Emil Kristoffersen

som stiller opp fleire spørsmål ein kontrollteori etter hennar oppfatting

bør kunne gi svar på. For det første må ein adekvat kontrollteori gi svar

på kva slags prinsipp som avgjør kva ledd som kan opptre som

kontrollører. Leksikalsk-funksjonell grammatikk er eksempel på ein

teori der denne problemstillinga er sentraL Ved ein form for kontroll, det som blir kalla "funksjonell kontroll", lar ein funksjonane i setninga

avgjøre kva som blir kontrollør av eit underforstått infinitivssubjekt (sjå

Lødrup 1989:32).

Vidare meiner Farkas at ein kontrollteori må kunne gjøre greie for

den syntaktiske og semantiske statusen til både det kontrollerte leddet

(altså infinitivssubjektet) og til den konstituenten som infinitivssubjektet

inngår i. Det siste spørsmålet Farkas nemner, er korleis val av

kontrollør blir bestemt når det er fleire enn ein mogleg kandidat for denne rolla i ei setning. Dette spørsmålet vil stå sentralt i det følgjande.

Problemstillinga, som Postal (1970:468) kalla "the control problem", og

som eg i det følgjande skal kalle KONTROLLPROBLEMET, trer tydeleg

fram i kontrasten mellom (lb,c) på den eine sida, og (ld) på den andre. I

alle dei tre setningane finn me tre syntaktiske argument, subjekt,

indirekte objekt og infinitivskomplement. Men medan det overordna objektet er kontrollør i (lb og d) (OBJEKTSKONTROLL), så har (ld)

kontroll ved det overordna subjektet (SUBJEKTSKONTROLL). Det sentrale spørsmålet i dette tilfellet er altså kvifor dei to første

setningane har objektskontroll mens den siste har subjektskontroll.

Det finst fleire forslag til svar på dette spørsmålet i den grammatiske litteraturen. På den eine sida er det dei reint syntaktiske analysane, som ser val av kontrollør anten som ei følgje av syntaktiske

funksjonar eller strukturelle relasjonar. Eg har alt nemnt funksjonell kontroll i LFG. På den andre sida står ulike typar av semantiske

analysar.z I denne korte presentasjonen skal eg først og fremst omtale

semantiske analysar som tar utgangspunkt i tematiske relasjonar som agens, patiens, etc. Men først skal eg kort omtale to reint strukturelle

2 I tillegg til syntaktiske og semantiske analysar finst nokre få tilnærmingar med pragmatisk utgangspunkt eller tilsnitt, f.eks. Comrie (1984) og Cutrer (1993).

Kontroll og kontrollteoriar 9

tilnærmingar, Rosenbaum (1970) og Larson (1991), og LPG-analysen av

funksjonell kontroll.

Eit tidleg forsøk på ei reint strukturell tilnærming til

kontrollproblemet er Rosenbaum (1970t som forklarer objektskontroll i setningar av typen (lb og c) som ein konsekvens av at objektet er den

nærmaste nominalfrasen til infinitivssubjektet. Av same grunn er det

overordna subjektet kontrollør i setningar av typen vist i (la).

(ld) skapar problem for Rosenbaums tilnærming, fordi det her er

subjektet og ikkje objektet som er kontrollør. I Rosenbaums strukturelle modell blir dermed kontrolløren ved dette verbet ikkje den nærmaste

nominalfrasen. Ei anna strukturell tilnærming, som gjør eit forsøk på å

løyse dette problemet, er Larson (1991). Han argumenterer ut frå uavhengig evidens for at to engelske verb som promise (subjektskontroll) og force (objektskontroll) har to ulike (abstrakte) D­

strukturar, der kontrolløren begge tilfelle står nærmast infinitivssubjektet.

Leksikalsk-funksjonell grammatikk gjør som nernnt greie for val

av kontrollør ved ein type kontroll ved hjelp av eit hierarki av

syntaktiske funksjonar. I korte trekk fungerer dette slik at viss eit verb

styrer både subjekt, objekt og indirekte objekt, så er det indirekte

objektet kontrollør; viss verbet styrer subjekt og objekt, så er objektet

kontrollør, og viss verbet bare styrer subjekt, så er dette kontrollør.

Med unntak av Larson (1991) har ik.kje reint strukturelle tilnærmingar til kontrollproblemet vore særleg vanlege dei siste 15 åra. Ei forklaring på dette kan vere at toneangivande lingvistar alt tidleg på

1980-talet rekna med at svaret på dette spørsmålet var å finne i andre

domene enn i det syntaktiske. Ein av desse er Chomsky, som (1981:76)

skriv at "[a] natural suggestion is that choice of controller is deterrnined

by e-roles or other semantic properties of the verb, or perhaps

pragmatic conditions of some sort." Og nettopp teoriar som tar utgangspunkt i "e-roles or other semantic properties of the verb" har

stått sentralt i litteraturen om kontroll fram til i dag. Eg vender meg nå

til denne typen tilnærmingar.

10 Kristian Emil Kristoffersen

2 KONTROLLPROBLEMET I LEKSIKALSK SEMANTIKK

2.0 Fokus i det følgjande ligg på fire tilnærmingar som klart er i slekt med kvarandre, men som likevel skil seg frå kvarandre på vesentlege punkt: Parkas (1988), Jackendoff (1990), Sag og Pollard (1991) og Farrell (1993).

2.1 Parkas (1988) tar for seg skilnaden i engelsk mellom verb som convince, ask, persuade, force, med objektskontroll, på den eine sida, og promise, med subjektskontroll, på den andre sida. Ved alle desse verba blir kontrollrelasjonen bestemt ved semantikken til heile konstruksjonen, og karakteristisk for både subjekt- og objektkontrollverb er ein ansvarsrelasjon ("RESP[onsibility] relation") mellom kontrollør og infinitivssubjekt. Denne relasjonen er til stades når referenten til subjektet (ved promise) eller objektet (ved convince, etc.) er ansvarleg for at den hendinga som infinitivsleddet refererer til, kjem eller vil kome i stand.

Som nemnt er ansvarsrelasjonen felles for semantikken til begge verbgruppene i Parkas' analyse. Skilnaden i kontrollørval mellom subjekt- og objektskontrollverb blir på den andre sida sett som ei følgje av leksikalske eigenskapar ved dei enkelte verbtypane, slik at bestemte leksikalske eigenskapar ved promise er ansvarleg for subjektskontroll ved dette verbet, medan andre eigenskapar er ansvarleg for objektskontroll ved f.eks. convince. Dessverre kjem Parkas i liten grad inn på konkrete aspekt ved desse eigenskapane.

2.2 Ein som tidleg lanserte ein semantisk teori om kontroll var Ray Jackendoff. I fleire arbeid, m.a. Jackendoff (1972, 1987 og 1990), tar han opp ulike semantiske aspekt ved kontrollfenomen, og grunnsynet hans er at ein kan gjøre greie for mange av desse ved ein teori om tematiske roller. I det følgjande konsentrerer eg meg om arbeidet frå1990. Der bygger Jackendoff på Grubers (1976) teori om tematiske roller, som han

Kontroll og kontrollteoriar 11

utvidar i tråd med Culicover og Wilkins (1986). I Jackendoffs

grammatiske modell er tematiske roller einingar på eit semantisk

representasjonsnivå han kallar konseptuell struktur ("Conceptual

structure"; CS), der omgrep og relasjonar mellom omgrep som har

lingvistisk relevans, er representerte.

Jackendoff presenterer ingen fullstendig analyse av kontrollørval

ved infinitivar i engelsk, men gjennom analysane hans av verb som

force og try, jf. (2), er det mogleg å danne seg eit bilete av korleis han

ser for seg ein teori om kontroll.

(2)

a. John forced Mary to lea ve.

b. John tried to leave.

Begge setningane i (2) har eit infinitivskomplement med eit semantisk

subjekt som i Jackendoffs teori må vere bunde til eit element i den

overordna setninga. Det underordna subjektet må av (dels) teoriinterne grunnar vere bunde til det nivået der rolleparet "actor-pati.ent", dvs.

agens-patiens, er representert. Vidare følgjer det av tydinga til force at

nettopp patiens-argumentet, uttrykt ved det overordna objektet, er kontrolløren (Jackendoff 1990:145). Av tilsvarande grunnar blir agens­argumentet, som svar ar til subjektet, ved try kontrollør i (2b ).

Forholdet mellom subjekts- og objektskontroll når ei setning inneheld fleire potensielle kontrollørar, som kontrasten mellom f.eks. promise og persuade blir ikkje eksplisitt drøfta av Jackedoff 1990. Men

ei naturleg følgje av teorien hans er at denne kontrasten skriv seg frå

ulike semantiske eigenskapar ved dei to verba. Dette spørsmålet er tatt

opp av Farrell (1993) innanfor Jackendoffs teoretiske ramme (sjå nedanfor).

2.3 Sag og Pollard (1991) presenterer ein analyse av kontrollørval som

formelt sett hører heime innanfor den generative modellen HPSG3, men

3 HPSG = Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Sjå Pollard og Sag (1994) for

12 Kristian Emil Kristoffersen

som i tilnærminga til kontrollproblemet nyttar innsikter frå leksikalsk semantikk. Dei drøftar tre grupper av kontrollverb, representerte ved persuade (3a), promise (3b) og want (3c).

(3) a. John persuaded Mary to leave. b. John promised Mary to leave. c. John wants to leave.

Ved kvar verbgruppe blir kontrolløren identifisert med utgangspunkt i bestemte semantiske forhold. Felles for dei tre verbklassane som inngår i analysen deira er at dei refererer til ein relasjon mellom eit overordna argument og den situasjonen som infinitivsargumentet refererer til. Desse relasjonane er av ulike slag. Ved objektskontrollverbet persuade reknar Sag og Pollard (1991:66) med ein relasjon P Å VERKNAD

("influence"), der det overordna subjektsargumentet påverkar objektsargumentet til å få stand den situasjonen som infinitivskomplementet refererer til. I denne situasjonen er det tre deltakarar, og altså tre roller: Den som påverkar ("influencer"), den som blir påverka ("influenced"), og argumentet som blir uttrykt ved infinitivskomplementet.

Subjektskontrollverbet promise uttrykker ein relasjon FORPLIKTING ("commitment"), der referenten til det overordna

subjektsargumentet forpliktar seg til å få i stand den situasjonen som infinitivskomplementet refererer til. I tillegg til desse to argumenta opptrer her eit tredje, som viser til den deltakaren som subjektsargumentet forplikar seg overfor (hos Sag og Pollard "commissee"). Dette argumentet blir ikkje altid uttrykt, som f.eks i setninga John promised to come.

I den tredje gruppa i Sag og Pollards analyse finn me verb som want, expect. Relasjonen her er MENTAL ORIENTERING ("orientation";

ein omfattande presentasjon. Denne inneheld også ein revidert versjon av Sag og Pollard (1991).

Kontroll og kontrollteoriar 13

dvs. ønske, forventing, begjær, etc.). Ved desse verba finst det eitt

argument i tillegg til det som er uttrykt ved infinitivskomplementet;

dette viser til den deltakaren som opplever ønsket, begjæret, etc., og kan

kallast perseptiv ("experiencer" hos Sag og Pollard). Val av kontrollør blir i Sag og Pollards teori uttrykt gjennom

direkte referanse til desse tre typane av relasjonar. Uformelt kan dette sjåast slik: Avhengig av om kontrollverbet denoterer ein relasjon av

typen påverknad (f.eks. persuade), forplikting (f.eks. promise) eller mental orientering (f.eks. want), blir det underforståtte infinitivssubjektet knytt til påverka deltakar, forpliktande deltakar eller

perseptiv deltakar.

2.4 Sag og Pollards (1991) analyse av kontrollørval er i hovudsak

semantisk basert. Også Farrell (1993) gjør framlegg om ein analyse som

fokuserer på semantiske forhold. Analysen hans av kontrollørval i

komplementinfinitivar bygger også på tematiske relasjonar.4 Farrell

bygger vidare på Sag og Pollard (1991) og deler kontrollverb i tre

semantiske klassar, verb som denoterer påverknad, forplikting og mental orientering. Eit sentralt element i Farrells teori er prinsippet som gjør greie for val av kontrollør. Dette blir formulert med

utgangspunkt i dei tre verbklassane, spesielt dei tematiske relasjonane knytte til dei. Farrell forkastar Sag og Pollards individuelle

rollenemningar "influenced", "committor" og "experiecer" til fordel for

dei to rollene agens og patiens. Kontrollørvalet blir så bestemt gjennom ei hierarkisering av desse rollene. Viss eit kontrollverb viser til både

agens og patiens er patiens kontrollør; viss verbet bare viser til agens er

dette argumentet kontrollør. Farrell rekner med at pram ise er av denne typen, og at dette gjør greie for subjektskontroll her.

2.5 Parkas (1988), Jackendoff (1990), Sag og Pollard (1991) og Farrell

(1993) hevdar alle at kontrollørval er avhengig av leksikalske

4 Farrell formaliserer analysen i Jackendoffs (1990) modell, der kontrollreglar blir formulerte på CS-nivå.

14 Kristian Emil Kristoffersen

eigenskapar ved det enkelte kontrollverb (eller kontrollverbklasse). Hos Parkas er ikkje desse eigenskapane spesifiserte. Hos dei tre andre er eigenskapane formulerte ved hjelp av nemningar som viser til tematiske relasjonar mellom kontrollverbverb og arguementa deira. Etter mitt syn er desse analysane på rett spor. På den andre sida reiser dei fleire spørsmål. Eit av dei mest framtredande problema går på det semantiske grunnlaget for klassifikasjonen av kontrollverb. Kor innlysande er det f.eks. å plasserere force og permit i same gruppe. Sag og Pollard (1991) kallar kontrolløren her "influenced participant", Jackendoff (1990) og Farrell (1993) nyttar termen "patient". For force gir dette innsikt, for permit kan det synast forvirrande, og bryt vidare med den tradisjonelle oppfattinga av patiens som "affected entity" (Jackendoff 1990:125f.). Eit liknande problem oppstår når try blir plassert i same gruppe som promise (Sag og Pollard; Farrell). Det siste er eit godt eksempel på eit verb som viser til ein forpliktingsrelasjon; det første er det ikkje. Dette kjem ikkje minst til synes ved at bare promise tillett eit argument som viser til "mottakaren" av forpliktinga.

3 OM KONTROLLPROBLEMET I NORSK

3.0 Dei forholda som er tatt opp i litteraturen som er referert ovanfor, er i liten grad drøfta med utgangspunkt i norsk. I dei tre norske innføringsbøkene som er skrivne i generativ syntaks, Hovdhaugen (1971), Lorenz (1979) og Nordgård og Åfarli (1990), finst det lite om kontrollproblemet. Den sistnemnde drøftar bindingsforhold i

kontrollkonstruksjonar, men forfattarane seier eksplisitt (s. 162) at dei ikkje ønskjer å gå inn på kontrollproblemet. Dei to tidlege bøkene nemner ikkje kontrollproblemet i det heile.

Den første som etter det eg kjenner til drøftar skilnaden i kontrollørval mellom love og f.eks. nekte i eit teoretisk perspektiv, er Hanssen (1972:170f.),s som ser subjektskontroll ved love som ei følgje av at dette verbet "oppfører seg noe eiendommelig syntaktisk sett". Aspekt

s Hanssen (1972) nyttar ikkje termen "kontroll".

Kontroll og kontrollteoriar 15

ved kontrollproblemet i forhold til norsk blir også tatt opp i ein artikkel

av Jan Engh, som opprinneleg blei skriven i 1982, og som er trykt i dette nummeret av Norskrift. Det sentrale temaet i Enghs arbeid er eit aspekt

ved kontrollproblemet som i litteraturen er omtala som "controller shift" (på norsk: KONTROLLØRSKIFTE), dvs. at eitt og same verb kan ha

subjektskontroll i ein samanheng og objektskontroll i ein annan. Fenomenet er illustrert med love i (4).

(4) a. Per lova Kari å reise.

b. Per lova Kari å få reise.

I (4a) opptrer love med subjektskontroll. (4b) derimot vil dei fleste tolke slik at objektet er kontrollør for infinitivssubjektet, altså objektskontroll.

Eit liknande fenomen kan observerast ved verbet be:

(5) a. Per bad Kari om å reise.

b. Per bad Kari om å få reise.

be tar normalt objektskontroll, som i (Sa). Men i (5b) finn me

subjektskontroll. Legg merke til at infinitivskomplementa i begge dei

avvikande setningane (4b) og (Sb) inneheld verbet få. Engh fokuserer i artikkelen sin særleg på tre verb, love, tilby og

garantere, som han i utgangspunktet reknar som subjektskontrollverb;

objektskontroll oppstår under bestemte vilkår, som aspekt, valens og kontekstuelle faktorar. Eit anna spørsmål som blir drøfta, er kva konsekvens det får for kontrolørval at infinitivskomplementet inneheld

hjelpeverbet få, jf, (4b) og (Sb).

Forholdet mellom kontrollørskifte og få blir også drøfta i Faarlund (1985). Faarlund ser på to konstruksjonar der få skapar ein

spesiell semantikk, imperativar som den i (6) og kontrollkonstruksjonar som den i (7):

16 Kristian Emil Kristoffersen

(6) Få den avisa.

(7) Jon bad læraren om å få gå tidleg.

Det underforståtte subjektet ved imperativen i (6) er ikkje 2. person, som

er det vanlege ved imperativar, men l. person. I (7) fører bruken av få til at det underforståtte subjektet i infinitiven er bunde til det overordna

subjektet, og ikkje objektet, som er det normale. Faarlund forklarar

kontrollørvalet i (7) etter følgjande linjer: Både imperativ og den

underordna infinitivsfrasen til be uttrykker ordrar eller oppmodingar.

Slike ordrar blir normalt retta mot den deltakaren som set i gang den

handlinga (er "causer") som imperativen eller infinitiven denoterer,

altså normalt subjektet for desse konstruksjonane, og i infinitivsfrasen

under be også det overordna objektet. Men viss få inngår i imperativen

eller infinitivsfrasen, er det ikkje lenger det underforståtte subjektet som

er "årsak" til handlinga; dermed oppstår det eit brot i (7) mellom

underforstått subjekt og overordna objekt som gjør subjektskontroll

mogleg. Faarlund prøver også å isolere dei eigenskapane ved få som gir

dette verbet slike særeigne syntaktiske og semantiske eigenskapar. Han

reknar med at det er inkoativt og at det tar eit subjekt med den

tematiske rolla "recipient". Subjektsreferenten har inga vilje eller

intensjon knytt til å utføre handlinga.

4 OPPSUMMERING

Det viktigaste målet med framstillinga ovanfor har vore å gi ein kort

presentasjon av ein type tilnærmingar til det som har blitt kalla

kontrollproblemet, dvs. spørsmålet om kva prinsipp som ligg til grunn

for val av kontrollør ved ulike kontrollverb. Eg har fokusert på

syntaktiske teoriar som prøver å forklare kontrollørval ved hjelp av

Kontroll og kontrollteoriar 17

syntaktiske funksjonar eller strukturelle konfigurasjonar, og vidare på

semantiske teoriar som bygger på tematiske relasjonar i sine

forklaringar av dette fenomenet. I siste delen har eg også gitt eit kort oversyn over sentrale

problemstillingar i to norske arbeid om kontroll, Faarlund (1985) og

artikkelen "On control" av Jan Engh, som blir presentert i dette

nummeret av Norskrift.

LITTERATUR

Bresnan, Joan W. 1982 (red.). The mental representation of grammatical

relations. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding.

Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

Comrie, Bernhard. 1984. Subject and object control: Syntax, semantics

and pragmatics. Brugman, Claudia og Monica Macaulay (red.):

Proceedings of the tenth annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics

society. Berkeley: University of California.

Culicover, Peter W. og Wilkins, Wendy. 1986. Control, PRO, and the

projection principle. Language 62:120-153.

Cutrer, L Michelle. 1993. Semantic and syntactic factors in control. Van Valin 1993:167-196.

Engh, Jan. 1982. On control. Trykt i dette nummeret av Norskrift.

Parkas, Donka F. 1988. On obligatory control. Linguistics and

philosophy 11:27-58.

Farrell, Patrick 1993. The interplay of syntax and semantics in

complement control. Føredrag heldt ved SALT HL

Faarlund, Jan T. 1985. Imperative and control. First person imperatives

in Norwegian. Nordic journal of linguistics 8:149-160 ..

Gruber, Jeffrey S. 1976. Lexical structures in syntax and semantics.

Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.

18 Kristian Emil Kristoffersen

Hanssen, Eskil: 1972, Den underordnete setning: om forholdet mellom

at-setning og infinitivfrase i norsk. Norsk tidsskrift for sprogvidenskap. 26:165-77

Hovdhaugen, Even. 1971. Transformasjonen generativ grammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.

Jackendoff, Ray. 1987. The status of thematic relations in Linguistic

theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18:369-411.

Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT

Press.

Larson, Richard K. 1991. Promise and the theory of control. Linguistic Inquiry 22:103-139.

Lorenz, Ove. 1979. Norsk setningsform: et kompendium transformasjonssyntaks. Oslo: Novus.

Lødrup, Helge. 1989. Indirekte objekter i LFG. Norskrift 60:19-36.

Nordgård, Torbjørn og Tor A Åfarli. 1990. Generativ syntaks. Ei innføring via norsk. Oslo: Novus.

Pollard, Carl and Sag, Ivan A 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago press.

Postal, Paul M. 1970. On coreferential complement subject deletion.

Linguistic Inquiry 1:439-500.

Rosenbaum, Peter S. 1970. A principle governing deletion in English

sentential complementation. Jacobs, R.A. og Rosenbaum, P.A.

(red.): Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham,

Mass.: Ginn and Company.

Sag, Ivan A. og Pollard, Carl. 1991. An integrated theory of complement

controL Language 67:63-113.

Thrainsson, Hoskuldur. 1979. On complementation in Icelandic. New

York: Garland.

Van Valin, Robert D. (red.). 1993. Advances in role and reference grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

On Control*

JANENGH

In this article, some observations on control in Chomsky 1981 are discussed on the basis of Norwegian sentences with infinitives as verbal com­plements. It is demonstrated that control is not exc!usively a result of configurational structure and of inherent properties of the matrix verb. Many verbs may appear in sentences with varying control relations, de­pending on the intension of the infinitival complement, the intension and the extension of the NPs, and contextual features. Meaning in a broad sense is essential to control structure. Further, the interdependence of control and passive is described, and some differences between Norwegian and English are pointed out.

In the Extended Standard Theory, empty categories are of crucial in­terest. But as far as PRO is concerned, research has been concentrated mainly around the question of where PRO may or must appear. Com­

paratively few linguists within EST take much interest in the possible

references of PROs; and when they do, their analysis seems to be somewhat biased by the generally accepted view of control in EST as

prindpally a syntactic phenomenon. Correspondingly, control theory is

the least developed subsystem of EST. In my opinion, this situation is partly due to the rather restricted definition of the notion of control,

where the importance of control as a syntactic property of the verb and

a configurational characteristic of the sentence is emphasized .

... control will be assigned by virtue of properties of the matrix verb ... (Chomsky and Lasnik 1977:440)

If ... there is no governing verb that assigns control, the embedded subject is assigned an arbitrary index. We understand [NP e] with an index that is not coindexed to an antecedent to be arbitrary in reference. (ibid.)

* I would like to thank Barbara Bird and Andrew Jones for helping me with the English data, and Thorstein Fretheim, Dag Gundersen, Per Kristian Halvorsen, and especially Kirsti Koch Christensen and Kari Anne Rand Schmidt for commenting on a preliminary draft. Needless to say, none of them are to be blamed for possible errors and deficiencies.

Jan Engh er førstebibliotekar ved Universietsbiblioteket i Oslo.

20 Jan Engh

Conversely, the role of semantics is neglected to a large extent, in spite of good intentions.

Control ... presumably has to do with the semantics of infinitival con­structions, an interesting but poorly understood question. (Chomsky and Lasnik 1977:443)

Chomsky 1980 does not reflect any deep change of attitude in this re­

sped. In Lectures on Government and Binding, however, Chomsky

accords greater importance to factors outside the domain of syntax

proper, as he sums up that the theory of control involves a number of

different factors: structural configurations, intrinsic properties of verbs,

other semantic and pragmatic considerations (Chomsky 1981:78). Not

surprisingly, Chomsky has little to say about the pragmatic aspects of

control. More interesting is the negligible space given to other semantic

considerations. But, Chomsky continues, Sorting these factors out and

explaining the cross-linguistic differences and similarities remains an

apen question.

In this article, I shall make an inquiry into sentences such as (1),

with special regards to the parts of the sentence other than the matrix

verb.

(l) Frank persuaded Mary to leave

The analysis will concentrate on the infinitival complement, system­

atizing some of the more casual observations of Chomsky (1981:76). The

discussion will be based on data from Norwegian, which I shall compare

with the sentence structure of English where such a contrast may be of

interest to linguistic theory.

In l. attention is given to passivization, a syntactic operation with

a specific relationship to the control phenomenon. Further, it is shown that in different grammatical traditions, the question of control is

viewed as an inherent property of the matrix verb. In 2. the idea of verbs

On Control 21

of subject control is discussed. It is demonstrated that the type of

infinitival complement plays an important part in determining the

control relation in the sentence. In 3. the analysis is extended from sentences in vacuo to sentences in context, while in 4. the role of the

auxiliary infinitive FÅ is discussed with respect to control structure and passivization. 5. contains a brief discussion of the connexion between the meaning of the NPs in the sentence and its control structure, and 6.

compares certain sentences with infinitival complement to sentences

with perfect participle as a verbal complement. In 7. the difference

between Norwegian and English is discussed, and finally, 8. concludes the article, mentioning possible consequences for the theory of control.

1. CONTROL AND VOICE. VISSER'S HYPOTHESIS

An English sentence in the active with an infinitival complement of the

predicate and with object control may be transformed into a corre­

sponding sentence in the passive with subject control.l

(l) Frank persuaded Mary to leave

(2) Mary was persuaded by Frank to leave

This operation is impossible if the sentence is characterized by subject

control in the active.

(3) Mary promised Frank to leave

(4) *Frank was promised by Mary to leave2

l Despite the use of terms such as to transform, and passivization, the present discussion is not based on any particular syntactic analysis of the relationship between active and passive sentences. I shall not be taking a stand in the controversy of how to derive sentences in the active and in the passive; from one or from different deep structures, and possibly, whether sentences in the passive ought to be generated in the lexicon or on a sentence or phrase level. I cannot see that my inquiry presupposes the one or the other conception of voice.

22 Jan Engh

In An Historical Syntax of the English Language, Visser maintains that

... a passive transform is only possible when the complement relates to the immediately preceding (pro)noun. (Visser 1973:2118)

One instance of this rather general rule, is that the only grammatical

sentences in the passive equal those active sentences whlch are char­

acterized by object control. In several articles on verbal cornplernen­

tation, this has been referred to as V isser' s generalization.3

If the regularity described by Visser applies whenever the con­

ditions for its application are met, one might as well have called it

V isser' s law, with a slight flavour of Junggramrnarian syntax. I shall

adopt Visser's law as a designation of the hypothesis that the regularity

observed by Visser applies without exceptions. With certain

modifications, this is also what others seern to mean by the term Visser's

generalization.

On the face of it, Norwegian displays the same regularities as to the convertibility of sentences in the passive and in the active as we find

in English. Let us start by considering the active sentences (5) and (7)

with object control and their passive counterparts.

(5) Lars anbefalte Roar å sove Lars recommended Roar PRORoar to sleep4

(6) Roar ble anbefalt av Lars å sove Roar was recommended by Lars PRORoar to sleep

2 I shall use the asterisk in order to mark that sentences are ungrammatical or unacceptable, if something else is not indicated. Correspondingly, I shall use terms like ungrammatical and unacceptable with roughly the same meaning. Especially in sentences like those discussed in this article it is extremely difficult -if feasible at all - to draw a clear borderline between ungrammaticality and unacceptability in the sense of Chomsky 1965. 3 E.g. Bach 1980 and Bresnan 1982. See also Bresnan 1978 and Wasow 1977. 4 The Norwegian gloss will be given word for word, regardless of the possible ungrammaticality of the English rendering. PROx is inserted in order to indicate the control relation that holds within the sentence.

On Control

(7) Lars anbefalte Roar å ete hvalbiff Lars recommended Roar PRORoar to eat whale steak

(8) Roar ble anbefalt av Lars å ete hvalbiff Roar was recommended by Lars PRORoar to eat whale

steak

23

To my knowledge, nobody has ever formulated any Visser's law for

Norwegian, however. But without using the term, the control phe­

nomenon is of course described in an informal manner by traditional

grammarians, e.g. Falk and Torp (1900:196 and 199). They mention

different verbs in connexion with each type of control. A contemporary

linguist, Eskil Hanssen, also discusses the subject, explicitly making the question of control a property of the matrix verb (Hanssen 1972).

In his article, Hanssen contends that even if a verb permits the

duster of transformations (in his theoretical framework), leading to the

equivalent of the English THAT-dause or an infinitival clause, there are

examples which indicate that the infinitival clause can only be used when the subjects of the matrix sentence and the implied subject of the

dause have identical reference. For instance, (9) can only be a transform

of (10).

(9) Hamlet lovte moren å reise

Hamlet promised his mother to leave

(10) Hamlet love [moren+ [dative]] [Hamlet reise]

The verb LOVE 'promise', he contends, requires that the subject of the

clause must be coreferent with the subject of LOVE (Hanssen 1972:

170f.).

There are many sentences, however, that could be interpreted as

counterexamples to the application of Visser's law in Norwegian, e.g. (11).

24 Jan Engh

(11) Roar ble lovt av Lars å komme inn

Roar was promised by Lars to come in

This applies not only to the verb LOVE, but also to verbs like

GARANTERE 'guarantee' and TILBY 'offer'. I will refer to verbs taking

object control as OC-verbs, as opposed to verbs like LOVE etc. which

belong to the group of verbs that it is most convenient to call SC-verbs,

as they are generally associated with subject control. SC-verbs exhibit

what Chomsky calls strong preference, perhaps requirements in the

respect of subject control (Chomsky 1981:76), and, informally, they are

often referred to by EST-linguists and by others simply as verbs of

subject control.

Against thls background, it is most natural to interpret Visser's

law as predicting that no active sentence with a SC-verb may be trans­

formed into an equivalent sentence in the passive. In this case, (11)

appears to be a counterexample to Visser's law in Norwegian, which, as

a consequence, cannot be the instantiation of a universal regularity

either.

But at a second glance, (11) must be construed in a way which

implies subject control. The prepositional adverb av Lars 'by Lars' does

not function as the controller. One might have expected this for two

reasons: LOVE is a SC-verb. The passive sentence generally renders the

converse relation of the content of the equivalent sentence in the active,

representing the logical subject as a prepositional adverb.

The reason for the unexpected control relation in (11) must be

sought in the corresponding active sentence itself, (12), in which there is

no subject control.

(12) Lars lovte Roar å komme inn

Lars promised Roar to come in

On Contra/ 25

Rather it is possible to interpret (12) as exhibiting object control, just like

a sentence in the active with e.g. ANBEFALE 'recommend' as matrix

verb, cf. (5) - (8). One may interpret the isolated sentence (12) as being

distinguished by subject control too, but it is not a sentence with the kind

of semantic content which equals (11).

The discussion of (11) has two important implications. If we adopt

an interpretation of Visser's law such that no active sentence

characterized by subject control may be transformed into an equivalent

sentence in the passive - which in my opinion is the only plausible

interpretation- Visser's law applies to Norwegian nevertheless.

The second implication of theoretical importance is that the

control relation of the sentence is not unambiguously determined by the

syntactic properties of the matrix verb.

2. VERBS OF SUBJECT CONTROL ?

Like English, Norwegian possesses two groups of verbs that may take

subject control; those which are capable of taking an indirect object (e.g.

LOVE, GARANTERE, and TILBY), and those which lack this capability

(e.g. FORSØKE 'try' and FORTSETTE 'continue'). The factor under­

lying the control structure of (11) and (12) is the capability of the verbs of

the former group to appear as matrix verbs in sentences with subject or object control. I shall refer to this group of verbs as the SC*-verbs. Their

ambiguity as to control becomes more salient in sentences like (13),

which equals (14).

(13) Lars lovte Roar å slippe inn på sjuer'n

Lars promised Roar toget in at the 7 o'dock performance, viz. Lars promised Roar that heRoar should get

admittance to ...

26 Jan Engh

(14) Roar ble lovt av Lars å slippe inn på sjuer'n

Roar was promised by Lars toget in at the 7 o'clock performance, viz. Roar was promised by Lars that heRoar

should get admittance to ...

As indicated in the gloss, the only reasonable interpretation of (13)

implies object control.

This double control property depends on several other semantic

characteristics of the sentence.

In both (11) and (14), we may interpret the infinitival complement

as (15).

(15) ' ... to have the permission to ... '

In other words, there is a certain semantic element of a normative kind

('permissive'), operating on the control structure of the sentence.s

An additional property of (11) and (14), which turns out to be of

interest to the present discussion, is that both sentences contain in­

finitives of intransitive verbs with a perfective intension. There are exceptions to this regularity, however. Some LOVE-sentences con­

taining an infinitival complement with a perfective intension cannot be

immediately interpreted by native speakers as characterized by object

control, e.g. (16).

(16) Lars lovte Roar å komme Lars promised Roar PROLars to come

But no infinitive of an intransitive verb with a non-perfective intension

can function as a verbal complement in a sentence with object control,

cf. (17).

5 This is not as transparent a fact to the non-linguist, native speaker of Norwe­gian as it rnight appear from the English rendering, however.

On Control

(17) Lars lovte Roar å le *Lars promised Roar PRORoar to laugh6

Lars promised Roar PROLars to laugh

27

Sentences of this kind obviously have no grarnmatical counterpart in the

passive.

(13) *Roar ble lovt av Lars å le

This holds when the matrix verb is GARANTERE or TILBY as well.

When the infinitive of the complement is a verb which is used transitively, the verbs of the SC*-group display different characteris­

tics. Two factors seem to be of importance, semantic properties of the

NPs in the sentence and the intension of the infinitival complement.

Only the latter will be dealt with in this section.7

LOVE and GARANTERE have subject control, and corresponding

sentences in the passive are ungrammatical.

(19) Lars lovte Roar å kjøpe en brus Lars promised Roar PROLars to buy a lemonade

(20) *Roar ble lovt av Lars å kjøpe en brus

Roar was promised by Lars to bu y a lemonade

On the other hand, TILBY allows object control, and consequently cor­responding passive sentences, cf. (21) and (22).

(21) Lars tilbød Roar å kjøpe huset Lars offered Roar PRORoar to buy the house

6 I.e. (17) is unacceptable in the sense intended. 7 The importance of the NPs in the sentence will be discussed in section 5.

28 Jan Engh

(22) Roar ble tilbudt av Lars å kjøpe huset Roar was offered by Lars PRORoar to buy the house

But if one substitutes the infinitive SELGE 'seil' for KJØPE, however, the control structure is altered. Cf. (23), which may only be given an interpretation with subject control.

(23) Lars tilbød Roar å selge huset Lars offered Roar PROLars to seil the house

In this particular case, the conclusion must obviously be that when the infinitival complement in a TILBY-sentence with one particular control structure expresses a relation of a specific kind, another sentence, with an infinitive expressing the converse relation, must be construed with the opposite control structure.s

The general pattem seems to be the following, however: If a verb which may function as the matrix predicate of a sentence with subject control, occurs in a sentence characterized by object control and consequently making it possible to form a corresponding sentence in the passive, the following conditions must be fulfilled: If the matrix verb is

either LOVE, GARANTERE, or some other verb sharing their essential properties, the infinitive must be an intransitive verb or a verb which is used intransitively, and in both cases the infinitive must have a perfective intension. If the matrix verb is TILBY, the infinitive may also be of a transitive verb. But there is one transitive verb which produce object control in sentences with all members of the SC*-group, FÅ 'get' as a full verb.

(24) Lars lovte Roar å få en brus Lars promised Roar PRORoar to get a lemonade

8 What kind of infinitives expressing what sort of relations that goes with what matrix verbs is another matter, which has to be dealt with elsewhere.

On Contra! 29

(25) Roar ble lovt av Lars å få en brus9 Roar was promised by Lars PRORoar to get a lemonade

So, the question of control in sentences containing those verbs

which are usually known as verbs of subject control, turns out to be a rather complicated matter; and the semantic properties of the infinitival

complements are of great importance. But for the sake of descriptive

economy, let us concentrate on LOVE, and pursue its properties a little further.

3. SENTENCES WITH AND WITHOUT A CONTEXT

What has been said about the relationship between transitivity and

control, applies when the sentence in question occurs in vacuo. As a

matter of fact, they very seldom do, and linguistic contexts will modify

the regularities described above. LOVE-sentences with an infinitive of a

transitive verb may be interpreted with object control as well, if there

are unmistakable cues to this effect in the context.

(26) Lars lovte Roar å hogge ved. Han måtte bare finne ei øks

som ikke var for tung for Roar først

Lars promised Roar to chop wood. He only first had to find an axe which was not too heavy for Roar

The same situation obtains in the case of sentences with intransitive

infinitives, which cannot be immediately interpreted as controlled by the

object.

9 Sentences such as (24) and (25) are synonymous to corresponding sentences without any infinitival complement, cf.

Lars lovte Roar en brus Lars promised Roar a lemonade

Roar ble lovt en brus av Lars Roar was promised a lemonade by Lars

(27) Lars lovte Vigdis å komme først, men Roar greide å snike

seg inn før henne i køen Lars promised Vigdisfem. to come/be first, but Roar

managed to slip in before her in the queue

It is a necessary condition for the object conl:rol interpretation of

all sentences with SC*-verbs as matrix predicates that the action de­

noted by the infinitive is of a krnd which it is reasonable to have another

person's permission to do. Any other interpretation than the one

implying subject control is therefore precluded in the case of both (28)

and (29).

(28) Lars lovte Roar å våkne Lars promised Roar PROLars to wake up

(29) Lars lovte Roar å skjære ned på universitetsbudsjettet Lars promised Roar PROLars to cut down the university's

budget

Special stress and intonation, emphasizing the second NP in the

sentence, may play a role parallel to a possible linguistic context in de­

termining the control relation. There are sentences with LOVE, how­

ever, in which only a linguistic context of the appropriate kind is capable

to induce object control. Only in sentences with an infinitival

complement of an intransitive verb with a perfective content, can stress

and intonation produce object control where it is unlikely for other

reasons.

On Contra/

Some infinitives con tro l

and their properties in spee. spee.

with respect to vacuo stress con-

transitivity and and text

perfectivity inton.

writ- oral writ-

ten text ten

text text

trans. HOGGE

(26) Lars lovte Roar å hogge ved s s o intr./non-perf. LE

(17) Lars lovte Roar å le s s o intr./perf. KOMME (INN),

SLIPPE INN P Å SJUER'N

(16) Lars lovte Roar å komme s s o (12) Lars lovte Roar å komme inn SlO o o (13) Lars lovte Roar å slippe inn på sjuer'n o o o

Figure l . LOVE with object control

Necessary condition: It must be reasonable to have another person's per­mission to perform the action denoted by the infinitival complement.

4. MORE ON VISSER AND ON NORWEGIAN

31

There exists another way in which to give all Norwegian sentences in the active with SC*-verbs as matrix predicate acceptable counterparts

in the passive, by inserting a FÅ (MA Y in the sense of 'have permission

to') as an auxiliary.

32 Jan Engh

(30) Lars lovte Roar å få le Lars promised Roar PRORoar to mayw laugh

(31) Roar ble lovt av Lars å få le Roar was promised by Lars PRORoar to may laugh

(32) Lars lovte Roar å få kjøpe en brus Lars promised Roar PRORoar to may buy a lemonade

(33) Roar ble lovt av Lars å få kjøpe en brus Roar was promised by Lars PRORoar to may buy a

lemonade

This does not cause any problems in connexion with Visser's law, however, since the active sentences have object control, whlle the

passive sentences exhibit subject control.

As mentioned above, there exists in Norwegian another group of

SC-verbs, FORSØKE, FORTSETTE etc.

(34) Lars forsøker å saldere budsjettet

Lars tries to balance the budget

(35) Lars fortsetter å sykle

Lars continues to cyde

They never appear in the passive succeeded by an active infinitive, no

matter what kind of infinitive, with or without FÅ.ll

10 In Norwegian, modal verbs like FÅ and MÅ 'must' have infinitives. In fact, å få is the infinitive form. Here, to may is intended to render this phenomenon. On the meaning of the modal FÅ, see note 11. 11 FORSØKE may have FÅ as an infinite auxiliary in active sentences.

Lars forsøkte å få saldert budsjettet Lars tried to get balanced the budget

On Contra! 33

In sentences with SC*-verbs and subject control which are ac­

ceptable without FÅ, this verb does not provoke any change in the control relation.

(36) Lars lovte Roar å få slippe inn på sjuer'n

(37) Roar ble lovt av Lars å få slippe inn på sjuer'n

(36) and (37) express the same meaning as (13) and (14). In (36) and (37),

FÅ may be regarded as expressing the speaker's interpretation of the

crucial aspect of the meaning of the corresponding sentence without FÅ, (13) and (14). In (30), (31), and (32), (33), FÅ adds to the meaning of the

sentence the element of 'permission' of the sentences which possess the

property of being passivized without an y FÅ (p. 25).

In sentences with FORSØKE, FÅ does not alter the control relation. On the other hand, FÅ adds an element of perfectivity to the meaning of the sentence, viz.:

... get done/manage to ...

With FORTSETTE, this possibility is excluded.

*Lars fortsetter å få sykle

In my view, the uninterpretability of this sentence is due to the incompatibility created by the durative intension of the matrix verb and the perfectivity of FÅ. When FÅ is used with the same intension as MAY in English, however, the sentence is grammatical, even if the main infinitive is the bearer of a non-per­fective intension. Cf.

Vi kan ikke la Lars fortsette å få drive på slik lenger We cannot let Lars continue to may go on in this way any longer

The strictly modal intension of FÅ in this sentence has a syntactic corollary; the order of FORTSETTE and FÅ may be changed, and the resultant sentence is more or less synonymous to the one above, cf.

Vi kan ikke la Lars få fortsette å drive på slik lenger We cannot let Lars may continue to go on in this way any longer

34 Jan Engh

On the other hand, FÅ is capable of creating subject control in

sentences with matrix verbs that ordinarily only appear with object control, e.g. BE 'ask'. Cf. (38) as distinct from (39).

(38) Lars bad Roar om å kjøpe en brus Lars asked Roar PRORoar to buy a lemonade

(39) Lars bad Roar om å få kjøpe en brus Lars asked Roar PROLars to may buy a lemonade

In sentences with matrix predicates of this kind, denoting a purely

normative (or negative) content, e.g. TILLATE 'permit', FÅ does not cause any alteration with regard to the control relation either. Such sentences become less acceptable with than without FÅ, however, and their passive counterparts are unacceptable for other reasons than those resulting from control structure.

(40) (*) Lars tillater Roar å få spille langeleik Lars permits Roar PRORoar to may play the dulcimer

(41) *Roar blir tillatt av Lars å få spille langeleik

When the matrix predicate has a normative content of the 'necessity' kind, e.g. PÅBY 'order', FÅ as an infinite auxiliary will give ungram­

matical sentences in the passive and in the active as well.

(42) *Lars påbød Roar å få lese sakspapirene

Lars ordered Roar to may read the documents

(43) *Roar ble påbudt å få lese sakspapirene

On Contra/ 35

As a general ruk however, FÅ is endowed with the property of

converting active sentences with subject control into sentences with

object control, and, of course, sentences of the latter kind are passiviz­able. Conversely, FÅ is also capable of changing certain sentences in the

active with object control into sentences characterized by subject

control. Sentences of the latter kind cannot be passivized either. This

becomes perfectly clear in the case of ANBEFALE 'recommend' as

matrix predicate, cf. (44). Sentences with BE seem a little more accept­able to native speakers, cf. (45).

(44) Roar ble anbefalt av Lars å få kjøpe en brus

Roar was recommended by Lars to rna y buy a lemonade

(45) (*)Roar ble bedt av Lars om å få kjøpe en brus Roar was asked by Lars to may buy a lemonade

The reason for this rnight be the resemblance between (45) and the fully

acceptable sentence (46).

(46) Roar ble spurt av Lars om å få kjøpe en brus

Roar was asked by Lars to rna y buy a lemonade

(46) corresponds to the active sentence (47).

(47) Lars spurte Roar om å få kjøpe en brus

Lars asked Roar to rna y bu y a lemonade

But in (47), we find subject control, and in (46), the prepositional adverb

av Lars is the controller. One observation which seems to support this

interpretation, is that a sentence corresponding to (46), but which lacks the prepositional adverb av Kåre, is ungrammatical, cf. (48).

36 Jan Engh

(48) *Roar ble spurt om å få kjøpe en brus Roar was asked to may buy a lemonade

The same situation obtains when FÅ is a full verb, appearing as the sole infinitive, e.g (49) and (50).

(49) Lars spurte Roar om å få en brus Lars asked Roar to get a lemonade

(50) Roar ble spurt av Lars om å få en brus Roar was asked by Lars to get a lemonade

This is sufficient reason for us to establish that there is no "Visser's law" in Norwegian. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to mention that Visser's hypothesis has a wider domain than the only type of sentences that has been discussed above. Cf. (51), which corresponds to the English sentence (52).

(51) Lars slår meg som tvers igjennom udugelig Lars strikes me as thoroughly incompetent

(52) John strikes me as pompous

Neither of them may be passivized, as distinct from (53), cf. (54).

(53) Vi ser på Lars som tvers igjennom udugelig We regard Lars as thoroughly incompetent

(54) Lars blir sett på av oss som tvers igjennom udugelig Lars is regarded by us as thoroughly incompetent

On Contra/ 37

This proves that Visser's hypothesis reflects an important regularity,

which is latent in the sentence structure of Norwegian, but which does not hold without exception.12

12 There are no grammatical sentences without FÅ corresponding to (46) and (47). Obviously, FÅ is necessary as a consequence of the need to express the modality of the clause, and parallel sentences with object control are grammatical only if they contain finite clauses, not infinitival clauses.

Lars spurte Roar om han kunne/ville kjøpe en brus Lars asked Roa if heRoar could/would buy a lemonade

(In this sentence, KUNNE has a dynamic reading.) A parallel sentence in the passive with subject control is the following:

Roar ble spurt av Lars om han kunne/ville kjøpe en brus Roar was asked by Lars if he Roar could/ would bu y a lemonade

Sentences with finite clauses can also have subject control in the active, and a prepositional adverb as a controller in the passive, cf.

Lars spurte Roar om han fikk kjøpe en brus Lars asked Roar if heLars might buy a lemonade

Roar ble spurt av Lars om han fikk kjøpe en brus Roar was asked by Lars if heLars might buy a lemonade

Here, I use the term control in a wider sense than the one accepted within EST; control is not bound to any specific linguistic model or theory, and must also be open to interpretations like the one above. Note that the following sentence is slightly unacceptable:

*Roar ble spurt om å få kjøpe en brus Roar was asked if to may buy a lemonade

The reason for this is probably the lack of controller represented in the sentence. In all other acceptable sentences in the passive, the phrase expressing the agent/ experiencer, may be omitted.

38 fan Engh

order of con tro! constitu- active passive ents of the gener- in tr. FÅ FÅ FÅ FÅ intr. gener-comp. all y perf. aux. aux. perf. ally

FORTSETTE inf (NP) s s s FORSØKE inf (NP) s s s s GARANTERE (NP) inf (NP) s SlO o o s s s LOVE (NP) inf (NP) s SlO o o s s s TILBY (NP) inf (NP) SlO S/0 o o s s s ANBEFALE (NP) inf (NP) o o o s s s s BE (NP) inf (NP) o o o s s s s TILLATE (NP) inf (NP) o o o o s PÅBY (NP) inf (NP) o o s SPØRRE (NP) OM inf (NP) s s PA PA

Figure 2.

Some properties of sentences in vacuo containing a sample of matrix verbs in Norwegian O represents object contra!, S subject control, and P A means that a prepositional adverb is the con troller

5. THE NPS OF THE SENTENCE AND THE CONTROL RELATION

So far, the inquiry has been concentrated on the connexion between control and the intension of the infinitival complement. In thls section,

the relationship between control and the NPs in the sentence will be discussed. For the sake of descriptive economy, only central aspects of

subject-NPs and (direct or indirect) object-NPs, will be analysed.

The problem of object-NPs has already been mentioned in passing (p. 26). In describing the control relation in sentences with SC*-verbs

and transitive infinitives, a fundamental abstraction was made, however, and the analysis needs some modification. (19) and (21)

represent what one may call the unmarked case with respect to one

relevant property of their object-NPs: Both LOVE and GARANTERE

On Control 39

usually occur with subject control, and the object-NPs in question do not

have intensions which make them refer to individuals particularly

disposed to perform the action denoted by the infinitive. In consequence,

sentences like (19) must be interpreted with subject control.

(19) Lars lovte Roar å kjøpe en brus Lars promised Roar PROLars to buy a lemonade

Now, let us turn to the marked case, viz. sentences with an object­NP whose referent- from our knowledge of the world - must be predis­

posed to be the actor of the infinitival action, e.g. eiendomsmekleren

'the estate agent' in a sentence with the infinitive SELGE 'sell'. Sen­

tences of this kind, containing LOVE or GARANTERE, are most likely to be construed with object control, but subject control is not exduded. On the other hand, TILBY-sentences must be interpreted with object con­

tro!, subject control being marginal.

(55) Lars lovte/ garanterte eiendomsmekleren å selge huset Lars promised/ guaranteed the estate agent PROthe estate

agent to seil the house

Lars promised/ guaranteed the estate agent PROLars to

sell the house

(56) Lars tilbød eiendomsmekleren å selge huset Lars offered the estate agent PROthe estate agent to sell the

house (*)Lars offered the estate agent PROLars to seil the house

Therefore, the referential properties of the object-NP, i.e. its intension and its possible extension, also have consequences for the control struc­

ture.

40

(53).

Jan Engh

This also holds for the subject-NP of the sentence.13 Cf. (57) and

(57) Landbruksministeren foreslår å dyrke mer neper

The Minister of Agriculture proposes to grow more swedes

(53) Bøndene på Romerike foreslår å dyrke mer neper

The farmers of Romerike propose to grow more swedes

In (58), an interpretation implying subject control is plausible. The farm­

ers in question are probably proposing to grow more swedes them­

selves. But it is reasonable to interpret the subject-NP of (57),

landbruksministeren 'the minister of agriculture', as proposing that

another person should grow more swedes. Consequently, under the

most natura! interpretation of (57), the complement, dyrke mer neper

'grow more swedes' is in fact uncontrolled.14

6. PERFECT P ARTICIPLE AS A VERBAL COMPLEMENT

The tendency towards object control, not subject control, and thus the possibility of passivization of sentences with SC*-verbs and intransitive infinitival complements may be matched with another property of the

verbs in the SC*-group: They all belong to the more extensive group of

verbs which may occur in the passive with a perfect participle as a

complement, i.e. in sentences parallel to the ungrammatical sentences with infinitival complementation.

(59) Lars lover statstjenestemennene å skaffe nytt arbeid Lars promises the civil servants to provide new jobs

13 This phenomenon is given a brief notice in Hanssen 1972:172. 14 This does not mean that the uncontrolled PRO is arbitrary in reference; see Bresnan 1982 and Engh 1982a. See Engh 1982b for further discussion and obser­vations concerning the control profiles of possible matrix verbs.

On Contra/

(60) *Stats~enestemennene loves av Lars å skaffe nytt arbeid The civil servants are promised by Lars to provide new jobs

(61) Stats*nestemennene loves skaffet nytt arbeid av Larsls

The civil servants are promised to be provided new jobs

by Lars

In both sentences (59) and (61), we find subject control.

Just like (13), sentence (61) contains an intransitive VP.

(62) slippe inn på sjuer'n

(63) skaffet stats~enestemennene nytt arbeid

41

In fact, the similarity between the intransitive infinitives in sen­

tences that may be passivized, and the complement perfect participle in

passive sentences is greater still: Representing the predicate of the

proposition underlying the clause, the perfect participle is situated in an intensional context. The perfect partidple form is the consequence of an

interpretation of this; perfect participle simply indicates the perfective

content, which is compatible with the position within an intensional

context (cf. Engh 1977).

There are also several other connexions between certain sentences with infinitival verbal complements and acceptable sentences in the

passive containing a perfect participle as verbal complement.

15 This phrase type is not a Norwegian pecularity. In fact, it may be found in most Northern and western European languages, regardless of genetic relationship; in the uralic language of Sam i (Lapp) as well as in English:

... the sign ' = ' ... may always be imagined eliminated ... (W.V. Quine: Methods of Logic London 1962:239.)

Cf. Engh 1977 and Engh 1982c.

42 Jan Engh

Firstly, the relevant meaning denoted by FÅ as an auxiliary, 'may' in the sense of 'permission', may be rewritten as 'be allowed to'. This is not self-evident, however, cf. von Wright 1963: 85ff, but it is an acceptable interpretation, reflecting the generally accepted popular view on permission. Thus, the dause might be understood as the expres­sion of a proposition containing a sort of lexicalized passive. If we ac­cept that, a passive sentence containing FÅ, which meets the necessary requirements, will resemble a sentence with a perfect participle instead of the infinitival complement. This similarity becomes dearer still, when we take a look at sentences with FÅ as a full verb.

(64) Lars lovte statstjenestemennene å få nytt arbeid Lars promised the civil servants to get new jobs

(65) Statstjenestemennene ble lovt av Lars å få nytt arbeid The civil servants were promised by Lars to get new jobs

( 66) Lars lovte Roar å få en brus Lars promised Roar PRORoar to get a lemonade

(67) Roar ble lovt av Lars å få en brus Roar was promised by Lars to have a lemonade

Secondly, as mentioned above, the perfect participle complement in sentences with a verb in the passive might be interpreted in two not mutually exdusive ways; as an expression of passive voice and as a mark of perfectivity. Perfectivity, however, might in turn be understood as the property of not having any extension in time. Consequently, change is a predominant aspect of perfectivity. FÅ gives to the clause a similar meaning of change. The action of FÅ-ing is characterized by a state without something before and by a state with afterwards. It does not take time to FÅ, just like toGET in English. FÅ as an auxiliary is endowed with the same semantic property. What is not permitted in one

On Control 43

moment, may be permitted in the next. Nor does it require any space of

time to allowe somebody to do something. The semantic factor of

change is also a part of the set of semantic properties characterizing

sentences with GARANTERE, LOVE, and TILBY as matrix verbs

without FÅ in the passive, as far as isolated sentences are concemed.

Their infinitival complements are either used intransitively, or simply,

they are intransitive, and at the same time, they have a perfective

content.

Furthermore, sentences like these and sentences with FÅ have

another trait in common; their complement denotes an action which is

permitted.

7. ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NORWEGIAN AND ENGLISH

Let us retum to Visser for a while once more. Visser's generalization

holds for English in the cases where it apparently does not hold for

Norwegian. In a certain sense, the English sentence (68) corresponds to

(13) in Norwegian.

(68) Frank promised Mary toget in ...

(13) Lars lovte Roar å slippe inn på sjuer'n

But (68) has subject control, not object control as its Norwegian counter­part does, and it has no acceptable passive transform, cf. (69).

( 69 *Mary was promised by Frank to get in ...

This might lead us to thlnk that it is of no importance for the control relation of English sentences what general semantic properties, such as

aktionsart, characterize the infinitive, as long as it is not endowed with

the same specific semantic characteristics as the polysemous verb FÅ in

Norwegian.

44 fan Engh

(70) has object control, as has (24), and like its Norwegian parallel,

it has an acceptable passive transform, (71).

(70) Frank promised Mary to get a lemonade

(71) Mary was promised by Frank toget a lemonade

BE ALLOWED TO is probably the idiomatically corred rendering in

English of FÅ as an auxiliary. Although there are same doubts as to the

acceptability of the adive sentence, the situation seems to be the same as

in the case of (70) and (71) above. One of my informants did not accept

(72), but all of them agreed on the acceptability of (73).

(72) (*)Frank promised Mary to be allowed to leave earl y

(73) Mary was promised by Frank to be allowed to leave early

So, BE ALLOWED TO plays the same role in English as do FÅ as an

auxiliary in Norwegian. If PROMISE is the matrix predicate, BE

ALLOWED TO con verts the contra l relation in to object contra l, and this

makes a passive transform of the sentence possible (cf. p. 23). As in

Norwegian, this has no significance for the validity of Visser's hypo­

thesis, however.

BE ALLOWED TO may also be used to alter sentences with object

control in order to produce subject control if the matrix verb is of the

appropriate kind.

(74) John asked the teacher to leave early

(75) John asked (begged, pleaded with, ... ) the teacher to be

allowed to leave early16

16 (74) and (75) are taken from Chomsky 1981:76. Chomsky comments: With persuadeas the main verb, reversal of contra/ ... seems much more difficult.

On Contra/ 45

And, as one would expect, these sentences have no corresponding sen­

tences in the passive, cf. the case of parallel subject control sentences without BE ALLOWED TO.

(76) *The teacher was asked by John to be allowed to leave earl y

This is also the case in Norwegian if the verb generally takes object control, except in those cases where the semantic content is approxi­mately the same as in ASK in English, even though they are not its exa et

counterpart, e.g. BE. When it comes to ASK, English differs from what

one might reasonably expect on the basis of the Norwegian data. As

shown on p. 33, a sentence with SPØRRE and FÅ may appear in the

passive. Apart from the domain of Visser's regularity, English seems to

differ from Norwegian insofar as the importance of the effect exerted

by the intension of the infinitival complement on the control relation is concerned. In Norwegian, there is a certain affinity between intransitive

and perfective infinitival complements and object control in sentences

with SC*-verbs as matrix predicates. English admits no such affinity in

connexion with corresponding matrix verbs.

8. CONCLUSION. CONSEQUENCES FOR THE THEORY OF CONTROL

In Norwegian, some verbs, e.g. FORSØKE 'try' and FORTSETTE 'continue', are equivocal as to the control relation they produce in the

sentence in which they may :function as the matrix predicate. This is

quite natural, since neither of them take an NP as an indirect object. Both FORSØKE and FORTSETTE require that the subject and the

implied agent/ experiencer haveidentical reference.

Most verbs which take an indirect object and an infinitival com­

plement, e.g. ANBEFALE 'recommend', and BE 'ask' appear in sen-

(Ibid.)

46 fan Engh

tences with an unstable, but easily predictable control relation. As long

as FÅ is not present in the surface structure as an auxiliary, the sentence

exhibits object control. If the sentence contains an auxiliary FÅ, however, it may only be interpreted with subject control.

A third group of verbs is the one referred to above as the S C*­group, whlch counts as its members GARANTERE, LOVE, and TILBY.

The sentences in which they occur, manifest subject or object control.

Sentences with GARANTERE or LOVE as matrix verbs have object

control H the sentence contains an auxiliary FÅ, or at least under certain

circumstances, when the infinitival complement is of an intransitive

verb (or a verb which is used intransitively) with a perfective intension. TILBY -sentences exhibit object control with transitive infinitiv al

complements of a particular kind too. Intrinsic syntactic properties of verbs are not the sole factor de­

termining the control relation of a given sentence. It is evident that the

infinitival complement is also important. The reason is simply that the meaning of all the central parts of the sentence, including the intension

of the infinitive as well as l:he extension of the subject and of the object,

is of direct significance. But there is also an indirect connexion between

control and meaning. As demonstrated above, there are groups of verbs that react in the

same manner when confronted with certain differences in l:he intension

of the infinitival complement, and their reactions differ, depending on

the group to which they belong. Some of the groups consist of verbs that share central syntactic properties, e.g. the order of the constituents of

the sentence, functional characteristics of the complement, or different

properties as regards the possible transformation of the infinitival

complement into complements of other sorts (such as a finite dause or

an ordinary NP). But similarity in meaning may often be a more salient

feature of the members of such a group of verbs. The SC*-verbs, for

instance, have certain syntactic properties in common, but other verbs,

which do not belong to the SC*-group, like HINDRE 'prevent' or

TILLATE 'permit', share the same properties (cf. Engh 1982b). Thus, the

On Control 47

relevant syntactic properties may represent a necessary, but surely not a

sufficient condition for membership in the group. What really constitutes

the group of SC*-verbs, is a common set of semantic properties in a narrow sense, (77).

(77) 'The person to which the subject refer has got something

that the referent of the object needs, or can act in a way which is desirable to him'

An additional characteristic is the fact that SC*-verbs are all used to

express roughly the same type of speech act. Although it has obvious implications on a syntactical level, control

is a semantic phenomenon. And the manifest control relations of a

sentence are a product of the latent control possibilities of the matrix verb and of other semantic factors of the sentence. Perhaps this is a little

easier to perceive on the basis of the Norwegian data. After all, the

question of meaning has an indirect bearing on syntactic conditions in Norwegian, since there is a comparatively clear connexion between

control, aktionsart, transitivity, and voice.17

REFERENCES

Bach, Ernmon W. 1980. "In Defence of Passive". Linguistics and

Philosophy 3.297-342

Bresnan, Joan. 1978. "A Realistic Transformational Grammar". In M.

Halle, J. Bresnan, and G. Miller eds. Linguistic Theory and

Psychological Reality. Cambridge:The MIT Press

17 Despite several hints and good intentions, this is a neglected aspect of the theory of control in EST. In lexical-functional grammar, on the other hand, the semantic nature of control is of central interest, cf. Bresnan 1982. The present article is written roughly within the framework of EST, but its content may be considered largely as complementary to and supporting the criticism levelled by Joan Bresnan against the theory of control in EST. When it comes to the details of my discussion, however, the analysis would certainly have been different, perhaps more adequate and shorter too, if it were based on LFG.

48 Jan Engh

Bresnan, Joan. 1982. "Control and Complementation". To appear in

Linguistic Inquiry Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cam­

bridge:The MIT Press

Chomsky, Noam. 1980. "On Binding". Linguistic Inquiry 11.1-46

Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht:Foris

Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik. 1977. "Filters and Control".

Linguistic Inquiry 8.425-504

Engh, Jan. 1977. "Enkelte problem vil bli forsøkt oppstilt". In T. Fretheim

ed. Sentrale problemer i norsk syntaks. Oslo:Universitetsforlaget Engh, Jan. 1982a. "Uncontrolled PROs without Arbitrary Reference".

Forthcoming Engh, Jan. 1982b. "Infinitiv som utfylling til verb i norsk". Forthcoming

Engh, Jan. 1982c. Verb i passiv fulgt av perfektum partisipp. Bruk og historie. Forthcoming

Falk, Hjalmar and Alf Torp. 1900. Dansk-norskens syntax. Kristiania:

Aschehoug

Hanssen, Eskil. 1972. "Den underordnete setning: Om forholdet mellom

at-setning og infinitivfrase i norsk". Norsk tidsskrift for sprogvidenskap. 26:165-77

Visser, F. T. 1973. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Vol. 3,

part 2. Leiden:Brill von Wright, Georg H. 1963. Norm and Action. London: Routledge and

KeganPaul Wasow, Thomas. 1977. "Transformations and the lexicon". In P.W.

Cullicover, T. Wasow, and A Akmajian eds. Formal Syntax. New

York:Academic Press

Uncontrolled PROs without Arbitrary Reference*

JANENGH

In Control and Complementation, Joan Bresnan demonstrates the

significance of meaning to the control relation of a given sentence, and

she levels an attack against the Extended Standard Theory conception of uncontrolled PROs as having arbitrary reference. I think her criticism

is well founded in this respect, and that Control and Complementation

is an important step in the direction of an adequate theory of control.

Bresnan's argumentation is partly based on the analysis of sen­

tences in context, since the uncontrolled PRO may refer to the same (group of) individual(s) as an NP outside the sentence. But however

sound her criticism, the recourse to the context might turn out to be a weakness, because it becomes possible to reject her important criticism

on more or less formal grounds, as being text grammar, not a sentence

grammar. I would like to present some data from Norwegian which indi­

cates that it is not necessary to cross sentence boundaries in order to establish that an uncontrolled PRO need not have arbitrary reference .l

In Norwegian, sentences with the causative LA 'let' and verbs of

perception, e.g HØRE 'hear' may take an infinitival complement with an (oblique) subject-NP and, when possible, an object-NP, cf. (l) and (2).

(l) Kåre lar Rolf pusse (vinduet)

Kåre lets Rolf dean (the window)

* I would like to thank Kirsti Koch Christensen, Even Hovdhaugen, and Kari Anne Rand Schmidt for discussing the idea presented here. All errors and unreasonable opinions are, of course, my own. I Norwegian must be considered as a representative of Scandinavian in this respect, as Danish and Swedish exhibit the same relevant properties as regards complementation.

50 Jan Engh

(2) Kåre hører Rolf hogge (ved)

Kåre hears Rolf chop (wood)

But unlike other verbs taking infinitival complements, these two (and a

few others) may also occur with another type of infinitival clause, the first NP in which is the object of the infinitive. There is no subject-NP in clauses of this type. Cf. Falk and Torp 1900, p. 194f.

(3) Kåre lar vinduet pusse Kåre lets the window obj. dean

(4) Kåre har hørt navnet nevne Kåre has heard the nameobj. mention

This is a peculiar construction in several respects. It is somewhat ar­chaic, and people often try to express their interpretation of it by chang­

ing the infinitive into a perfect participle, making the sentence conform to a more common pattem:

(5) Kåre har hørt navnet nevnt Kåre has heard the name mentioned

Thus, they indicate that the NP in question is the patient of the

action. Sentences with HØRE are only fully acceptable with the matrix

verb in the perfect. In the case of (1), the choice of tense is free in prin­ciple.

The relevance of this construction to Bresnan's discussion, is the

lack of an overt subject in the clause. The PRO in question is uncon­trolled, and hence, following Chomsky (for instance 1997, p. 440), PRO is arbitrary in reference.

In a literal sense, this means that a PRO of this kind may refer to everything in the universe of discourse, even to the same individual(s) as

Uncontro/led PROs without Arbitrary Reference 51

the subject of the sentence refers to. However, tlus is not the case. On

the contrary, in a sentence like (3), it is implied that the reference of PRO

and Kåre is not identical. One might easily imagine that this is a

function of the causative intention of (1), since it is pointless to say that

one lets oneself perform a certain action. That is not the case, however.

Sentence (4) is endowed with the same semantic property, although

HØRE is the matrix verb. Somebody else has mentioned the name.

This means that there is presupposed a set of persons to whom the

PRO may refer; PRO has no specific reference, but it has an extension.

In this sentence, the uncontrolled PRO is not arbitrary in reference. And

this holds also for the sentence when it occurs explicitly in vacuo, which,

in my view, is a strong support for the kind of criticism expressed by

Bresnan in her article.

REFERENCES

Bresnan, Joan. 1982. "Control and Complementation". To appear in

Linguistic Inquiry

Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasillk. 1977. "Filters and Control".

Linguistic Inquiry 8.425-504

Falk, Hjalmar and Alf Torp. 1900. Dansk-norskens syntax., Kristiania:­

Aschehoug

Postludium

JAN ENGH

'On Control' and 'Uncontrolled PROs without Arbiary Reference' were

written in the early summer of 1982. For various reasons, they were

never published. The current versions are identical to the original ones

with the following exceptions: A few misspellings have been corrected

and a number of purely graphic changes have been made. This is due to

the conversion of the manuscripts to machine-readable form and to the

subsequent adaptation to the graphic standard of NORskrift. As for the bibliographic references,

Bresnan, Joan. 1982. 'Control and Complementation'. To appear in

Linguistic Inquiry

was published as

Bresnan, Joan. 1982. 'Control and Complementation', Linguistic Inquiry 13/3:343-434

Engh, Jan. 1982b. 'Infinitiv som utfylling til verb i norsk'. Forthcoming

was never published. On the other hand,

Engh, Jan. 1982c. Verb Forthcoming

passiv fulgt av perfektum partisipp.

was finally published in 1994 (Oslo, Norway: Novus forlag).

Con tro l

A Bibliography

JAN ENGH AND KRISTIAN EMIL KRISTOFFERSEN

The scope of this bibliography is to cover the grammatical literature on the understood subject of infinitives. It is based on various

sources: First of alt on special bibliographical research, but also on queries for bibliographical references via LINGUIST LIST in 1993 and

1996, supplemented with searches in printed bibliographies, e.g. Eisenberg, Peter and Bernd Wiese: Bibliographie zur deutschen

Grammatik: 1984-1994. Tiibingen, Germany: Narr 1995, accessible

machine-readable bibliographical databases: International databases such as Francis, Humanities Index and Modern Languages Association,

in addition to "local" databases such as NOT A.l

Now, one might ask why a special bibliography for the notion of

control is required, given the number of bibliographical resources mentioned above. The reason is two-fold: First of all, 'control' is an

important and poorly understood category blurring the traditional limit

between semantics and syntax. Secondly, searches for 'control', 'controle', Kontrolle' or the like is not quite a trivial matter from a

technical point of view. On the one hand, "control" is a fairly general

word, and so are its equivalents in other languages. On the other hand,

one has no guarantee that possible delimiting words such as "subject", "object", "verb", "linguistic" or "language" are being used in titles,

abstracts, index word fields or any other searchable field for that

matter. In order to be on the safe side, then, one cannot refrain from searching for 'control' etc. alone. And even if one tries to limit the search by means of NOT 'birth', 'flow', 'pest', and 'social' etc. one ends up with

a large number of references - mostly on subjects different from the one

l The Norwegian database for scientific articles.

54 Jan Engh and Kristian Emil Kristoffersen

intended... In fact, even if one does delimit the search by means of 'syntactic' or 'semantic' a number of irrelevant data is accumulated. E.g.:

TI: Visual Word Recognition: Evidence for Strategic Control of Lexical and Nonlexical Routines in Oral Reading AU: Baluch,-Bahman; Besner,-Derek SO: Journal-of-Experimental-Psychology:-Learning,-Memory,­and-Cognition, Washington, DC (JExPLMC). 1991 July, 17:4, 644-52 (---) PY: 1991 DE: language-; psycholinguistics-; reading-; role of orthography-; semantic-relations; word-frequency; in word­recognition; in Persian-language-Modern

So, the raison d'etre of the bibliography is to spare others from looking through an enormous number of similarly irrelevant references in order to find those relatively few focussing on semantic or syntactic control.

A comment on the verification problem. Unfortunately, we have not been able to read all the publications listed (which, in turn, is a sign that quite a few of them are rather inaccessible). This means that the selection has been carried out to the best of our judgement - and in some cases to that of our informants. We are not in the position to guarantee that every publication discusses 'control' in exactly the sense we are after. When in doubt, though, we have adopted a liberal view, preferring to include one irrelevant title rather than to omit any title of interest.

The titles included in the bibliography refer to specialized literature on the subject. In general, works of a global nature have not been included. Exceptions are titles that can be considered of particular interest for control in the development of linguistic theory, e.g. Chomsky 1965, 1981, Jackendoff 1972, and titles such as Radford 1981 and Brennenstuhl1982. Although the latter is focusing on action logic, it has been included since it contains relevant information on the notion of

Control - A Bibliography 55

control in general. Radford's introductory book also contains a

contribution to the description of linguistic 'control'.

As far as articles in collections or proceedings papers are

concerned, the full reference is given except in those cases where the

collection or proceedings is focussing on control. In the latter case, it is

entered as a title in its own right.

Finally, a few words on the notation. The references are presented

in a way which is not technically complete, nor correct from a strict

library cataloguing point of view. Still, the information will be enough

to give the reader a necessary hint, when looking up the item in the local

library catalogue or database. It represents a compromise between the

formats found in international/ American and Scandinavian scientific

journals.2 As for the details on the content side, we have tried to resolve as

many as possible of the initials appearing in our sources. We have not

managed to resolve them all, though. More investigation would have

caused a delay, and we found it better to renounce a 100% exactness in

order to make the bibliography available for the public now ...

The target audience is linguistic students and researchers. We

hope the bibliography will be useful for those taking a particular interest

in 'control'3

2 The notational conventions are partly based on the recomendations of The Chicago manual of style: for authors, editors, and copywriters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982. 3 The authors will be happy to receive corrections and suggestions for further titles to be included. Even for a restricted subject such as semantic or syn­tactic contra! it is virtually impossible to avoid lacunas. It is also our intention to carry on with the work. Corrected and augmented versions of the bibliography will appear with irregular intervals - probably on the web.

56 Jan Engh and Kristian Emil Kristoffersen

REFERENCES

Abraham, Werner: 1982, 'Zur Kontrollbeziehung im Deutschen'.

Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik. 21/112-167 Abraham, Werner: 1983, The control relation in German'. In Abraham,

Werner (ed.): On the formal syntax of the Westgermania: papers from

'3rd Groningen grammar talks', Groningen, January. 1981.

Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins 217-242 Abraham, Werner: 1983, 'Zur Kontrollbeziehung im Deutschen'. In

Jongen, Rene, Sabine De Knop, Peter H. Nelde, and Marie Paule

Quix (eds.): Akten des 17. Linguistischen Kolloquiums, Brussel, 1982, I:

Sprache, Diskurs und Text. (Linguistische Arbeiten 133) Tiibingen,

Germany: Niemeyer 41-59 Aissen, Judith L.: 1984, 'Control and command in Tzotzil purpose

Clauses'. In Brugman, Claudia, Monica Maccaulay, Amy Dahlstrom, Michele Emanatian, Birch Moonwoman, and Catherine O'Connor

(eds.): Proceedings of the tenth annua[ meeting of the Berkeley

Linguistics Society, February 17-20, 1984. Berkeley. Berkeley, Ca.:

Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California 559-571

Al-Haq, Fawwaz Al-Abed: 1992, 'Functional or anaphoric control in

Jordanian Arabic?'. Language sciences 14/1-2:1-28

Andrews, Avery D.: 1982, 'The representation of case in Modern

Icelandic'. In Bresnan 1982b 427-503 Andrews, Avery D.: 1990, 'Case structures and control in Modem

Icelandic'. In Maling and Joan, Annie Zaenen (eds.): Modern Icelandic

syntax. (Syntax and semantics 24) San Diego, Ca.: Academic Press

187-234 Bach, Emmon: 1969, 'Linguistic form: transformational theory'. In

Meetham, AR. and R. A Hudson (eds.): Encyclopedia of linguistics.

information and control 280-284

Bach, Emmon: 1979, 'Control in Montague grammar'. Linguistic inquiry

10/515-31

Contra/ - A Bibliography 57

Bach, Emmon: 1982, 'Purpose clauses and control'. In Jacobson, Pauline

and Geoffrey K. Pullam (eds.): The Nature of syntactic

representation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel 35-57

Bagchi, Tista: 1993a, 'Control, reflexives, and automodularity in Bangla

imperfective participial complements'. In Beals, Katharine, Gina

Cooke, David Kathman, Sotaro Kita, Karl-Erik McCullough, and

David Testen (eds.): Chicago Linguistic Society 29th regional meeting

1993. The main session Chicago, Il.: CLS 1:17-32

Bagchi, Tista: 1993b, Clausal subordination in Bangla: a cross-modular

approach. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago. Chicago Il.:

University of Chicago, Joseph Regenstein Library, Department of Photoduplication

Baschung, Karen: 1988, 'Controle et relations de paraphrase et d'ambigui:te dans les enchassees verbales'. In Bes, Gabriel G. and

Catherine Fuchs (eds.): Lexique et paraphrase. (Lexique 6) Lille,

France: Presses universitaires de Lille 83-95 Baschung, Karen: 1991, Grammaires d'unification a traits et contr6le

des infinitives en fram;ais. (Langues naturelles et traitement de

['information 2) Clermont-Ferrand, France: Adosa

Bearth, T.: 1984, 'Periphrases du passif fran~ais et la notion de controle'.

Bulletin de la Section de linguistique de la faculte des let tres de

Lausanne 6 l 27-40 Bergner, E. and E. Nylund: 1995, 'Aspect, directionality and control in

Japanese'. In Bennett, David C., Theodora Bynon, and B. George

Hewitt (eds.): Subject, voice and ergativity. London, UK: School of

Oriental and African Studies

Boland, Julie E., Michael K. Tanenhaus, and Susan M. Garnsey: 1990, 'Evidence for the immediate use of verb control information in

sentence processing'. Journal of memory and language 29 l 4:413-32 Borer, Hagit: 1989, 'Anaphoric AGR'. In Jaeggli, Osvaldo and Kenneth J.

Safir (eds.): The null subject parameter. (Studies in natural language

and linguistic Theory 15) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer 69-109

58 Jan Engh and Kristian Emil Kristoffersen

Borsley, Robert D.: 1984, 'VP complements: evidence from Welsh'. Journal of linguistics 20/2:277-302

Borsley, Robert D.: 1987, 'A Note on traditional treatments of Welsh'. Journal of linguistics 23/1:185-190

Brame, Michael K.: 1984, 'Ungrammatical notes, VII: explaining

anaphora'. Linguistic analysis Branco, Antonio Horta and Paula Guerreiro: 1993, 'Le Traitement

lexicologique des structures de contr6le du Portugais (GENLEX)'

Publica~oes/Working papers 22. Lisbon, Portugal: Instituto de

linguistica te6rica e computacional

Brandt, Søren: 1995, Infinitive control in Danish. (Historisk-filosofiske meddelelser 69) Copenhagen: Munksgaard

Brennenstuhl, Waltraud: 1982, Control and ability: towards a biocybernetics of language. (Pragmatics and beyond 3/4) Amsterdam,

The Netherlands: John Benjamins

Bresnan, Joan W.: 1982a, 'Control and complementation'. Linguistic inquiry 13/3:343-434. Also in Bresnan 1982b 282-390

Bresnan, Joan W. (ed.): 1982b, The Mental representation of grammatical relations. (MIT Press series on cognitive theory and mental representation) Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press

Brody, Michael: 1982, 'On deletion and on local control'. In Marantz,

Alec and Tim Stowell (eds.): Papers in syntax. (MIT Working papers in linguistics 4) 5-14

Broihier, Kevin and Kenneth Wexler: 1992, 'Control structures in child grammar'. [P aper presented at the Boston University conference on

language development] Budwig, Nancy: 1989, 'The Linguistic marking of agentivity and control

in child language'. Journal of child language 16/2:263-284

Cadiot, Pierre: 1990, 'Contr6le anaphorique et pn§positions'. Langages 97:8-23

Cairns, Helen Smith, Dana McDaniel, Jennifer Ryan Hsu, Michelle

Rapp: 1994 'A Longitudinal study of principles of control and

pronominal reference in child English' Language 70/2:260-88

Control - A Bibliography 59

Calabrese, Andrea: 1992, 'The Lack of infinitival clauses in Salentino: a

synchronic analysis'. ln Laeufer, Christiane and Terrell A Morgan (eds.): Theoretical analyses in Romance linguistics: selected papers

from the nineteenth linguistic symposium on Romance languages.

(LSRL XIX), Ohio State University, 21-23 Apr. 1989. (Amsterdam

studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series 4: Current

issues in linguistic theory 74) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins, 267-94

Carter, D.: 1990, 'Control issues in anaphor resolution'. Journal of

semantics 7 l 4:435-

Cattell, Ra y: 1984, Composite predicates in English. (Syntax and

semantics 17) Sydney, Australia: Academic Press

Chanod, Jean-Pierre, Bettina Harriehausen, and Simonetta Montemagni: 1993, 'A Two-stage algorithm to parse multi-lingual

argument structures'. In Jensen, Karen, George Heidorn, and

Stephen D. Richardson: Natura! language processing: The PLNLP

approach. (The Kluwer international series in engineering and

computer science. Natura! language processing and machine

translation.) Boston, Mass.: Kluwer 215-226

Chao, W.: 1981, 'PRO-drop languages and nonobligatory control'. In W. Chao and D. Wheeler (eds.): University of Massachusetts occational

papers in linguistics 7

Chierchia, Gennaro: 1983, 'Outline of a semantic theory of (obligatory)

control'. ln Barlow, Michael, Daniel P. Flickinger, and Michael T. Wescoat (eds.): Proceedings of the West Coast conference on formal

linguistics. Stanford, Ca.: Stanford Linguistics Association (Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University) 19-

31 Chierchia, Gennaro: 1984, 'Anaphoric properties of infinitives and

gerunds'. ln Cobler, Mark, Susannah Mackaye, and Michael

Westcoat (eds.): Proceedings of the third West Coast conference on

formal linguistics. Stanford, Ca.: Stanford Linguistics Association

60 Jan Engh and Kristian Emil Kristoffersen

(Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University)

Chierchia, Gennaro: [1984] 1988, Topics in the syntax and semantics of

infinitives and gerunds. Doctoral dissertation, University of

Massachusetts, Amherst. (Outstanding dissertations in linguistics)

New York, N.Y.: Garland

Chierchia, Gennaro: 1989a, 'Anaphora and attitudes De Se'. In Bartsch,

Renate, Johan van Benthem, and P. van Emde Boas (eds.): Semantics

and contextual expression. (Groningen-Amsterdam studies in

semantics) Dordrecht : Foris

Chierchia, Gennaro: 1989b, 'Structured meanings, thematic roles and control'. In Chierchia, Gennaro, Barbara Hall Partee, and Raymond Turner (eds.): Properties, types and meanings, II: semantic issues.

(Studies in linguistics and philosophy 38-39) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer 131-166

Chierchia, Gennaro and Pauline Jacobson: 1986, 'Local and long distance control'. In Berman, S., J. Choe, and J. McConough (eds.): Papers from the sixteenth annua[ meeting of the North Eastern

Linguistic Society. Amherst, Mass.: GLSA, University of Massachusetts

Choi, Jae Oh: [1992] 1993, Licensing in Korean: multiple case,

predication, control, and anaphora, Doctoral dissertation, New York University, New York. Dissertation Abstracts Intemational53/11

Chomsky, Noam: 1965, Aspects of the theory of syntax, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press

Chomsky, Noam: 1980a, 'A Note on non-control PRO'. Journal of

linguistic research l/ 4:1-11

Chomsky, Noam: 1980b, 'On binding'. Linguistic inquiry 11/1-46 Chomsky, Noam: 1981, Lectures on government and binding.

Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris Publications Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik: 1977, 'Fil ters and con tro l'.

Linguistic inquiry 8 l 425-504

Control - A Bibliography 61

Clark, Robin Lee: [1985] 1986, Boundaries and the treatment of control.

Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.

Dissertation Abstracts International 46/12. Also published (1990) in a

modified version as Thematic theory in syntax and interpretation.

(Croom Heim linguistics series) London, UK: Routledge

Clements, J. Clancy: [1990] 1992, 'Semantics of control, tense sequencing

and disjoint reference'. In Hirschbiihler, Paul and Konrad Koerner

(eds.): Romance languages and modern linguistic theory 45-56.

(Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science.

Series 4: Current issues in linguistic theory 91) Amsterdam, The

Netherlands: John Benjamins 45-56 Comorovski, Ileana: 1986, 'Control and obviation in Romanian'. In

Choi, Soonja, Dan Devitt, Wynn Janis, Terry McCoy, and Zheng­sheng Zhang (eds.): Proceedings of the second Eastern States

conference on linguistics. Columbus, Oh.: Department of Linguistics,

Ohio State University 47-56

Comrie, Bernard: 1984, 'Subject and object control: syntax, semantics and pragmatics'. In Brugman, Claudia and Monica Macaulay (eds.):

Proceedings of the tenth annua! meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics

Society. February 17-20, 1984. Berkeley. Berkeley, Ca.: Berkeley

Linguistics Society, University of California

Comrie, Bernard: 1985, 'Reflections on subject and object control'.

Journal of semantics 4/1:47-65 Cormack, Annabel: 1995, 'The semantics of case'. U C L Working papers

in linguistics 7/235-276 Culicover, Peter W.: 1988, 'Autonomy, predication, and thematic

relations'. In Wilkins 1988 37-60 Culicover, Peter W. and Wendy Wilkins: 1986, 'Control, PRO, and the

projection principle'. Language 62/120-153. C u trer, L. Michelle: 1987, 'Theories of obligatory con tro l'. University of

California at Davis working papers in linguistics 2:6-37

62 fan Engh and Kristian Emil Kristoffersen

Cutrer, L. Michelle: 1993, 'Semantic and syntactic factors in control'. In

Van Valin jr., Robert D. (ed.): Advances in role and reference

grammar. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Davies, William 0.: 1988, 'The case against functional control'. Lingua

76/1-20

Davis, Lori: 1982, 'Argument-binding and control'. Journal of linguistic

research

Davison, Alice: 1985, 'Case and control in Hindi-Urdu'. Studies in the

linguistic sciences

Demonte, Violeta: 1988, 'El 'articulo en lugar del posesivo' y el control

de. los sintagmas nominales'. Nueva revista de filologia hispanica

36/1:89-108 Dooley, Robert A.: 1988, 'Pragmatics and grammar: motivation and

control'. Work papers of the summer institute of linguistics,

University of North Dakota session 32/59-86 Dowty, David R.: 1985, 'On recent analyses of the semantics of con tro l'.

Linguistics and philosophy 8/3:291-331

Eisenberg, Peter: [1985] 1986, 'Zmn Kontrollproblem im Deutschen: Infinitivkomplemente bei Wahrnehmungsverben'. In Burkhardt, Armin and Karl-Hermann Korner (eds.): Pragmantax: Akten des 20.

Linguistischen Kolloquiums Braunschweig 1985. (Linguistische

Arbeiten 171) Tiibingen, Germany: Niemeyer 37-46

Engh, Jan: [1982]1996a, 'On control'. NORskrift 89:19-48 Engh, Jan: [1982] 1996b, 'Uncontrolled PROs without arbitrary

reference'. NORskrift 89:49-51 Ernst, Thomas: 1987, 'Control and predication in mandarin Chinese'. In

Marshall, Fred, Ann M. Miller, Zheng Sheng Zhang (eds.):

Proceedings of the third Eastern States conference on linguistics.

Columbus, Oh.: Ohio State University 139-150 Estival, Dominique: 1994, [Review of Baschung 1991.] Computational

linguistics 20 l 4:661-64 Falk, Yehuda N.: 1983, 'Subjects and long-distance dependencies'.

Linguistic analysis 12/3:245-270

Contra/ - A Bibliography 63

Panego, Teresa: 1996, 'The development of gerunds as objects of subject-control verbs in English (1400-1760)'. Diachronica 13/1:29-62

Parkas, Donka P.: 1985, 'Obligatory controlled subjects in Romanian'.

Chicago Linguistics Society. Papers from the general sess ion at the 21th regional meeting 21/1:90-100

Parkas, Donka F.: 1988, 'On obligatory control'. Linguistics and philosophy 11/1:27-58

Farrell, Patrick: 1993 'The interplay of syntax and semantics in

complement control'. In Lahiri, Utpal and Adam Wyner (eds.):

Proceedings from semantics and linguistic theory III. Ithaca, N.Y.:

Comell University 57-76

Parrell, Patrick: 1994, 'Causative binding and the minimal distance

principle'. In Aranovich, Raul, William Byrne, Susanna Preuss, and

Martha Senturia (eds.): Proceedings of the thirteenth West Coast conference on formal linguistics. Stanford, Ca.: Stanford Linguistics

Association (Center for the Study of Language and Information,

Stanford University) 237-252

Parrell, Patrick: [1994] 1995a, 'Backward control in Brazilian Portuguese'. In Puller, Janet M., Ho Han, and David Parkinson (eds.):

ESCOL '94 (Proceedings of the eleventh Eastern States conference on linguistics) 116-127

Parrell, Patrick: 1995b, 'Lexical binding'. Linguistics 33/939-980 Fehri, Abdelkader Fassi: (1981), 'Theorie lexicale-fonctionnelle: contr6le

et accord en arabe moderne'. Arabica: revue d'etudes arabes, 28/299-

332 Piengo, Robert and Hea-sun Kim: 1980, 'Binding and control in Korean:

structural restrictions on anaphora in a non-configurational language'. Journal of linguistic research 1980, l l 4:59-73

Fillmore, Charles J.: 1986, 'Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora'. In Nikiforidou, Vassiliki, Mary VanClay, Mary Niepokuj, and Deborah Peder (eds.): Proceedings of the twelfth annua! meeting of the

Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 15-17, 1986. Berkele. Berkeley,

Ca.: Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California 95-107

64 Jan Engh and Kristian Emil Kristoffersen

Foley, William A and Robert D. Van Valin Jr.: 1984, Functional syntax

and universal grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Franks, Steven and Norbert Hornstein: 1992: 'Secondary predication in

Russian and proper government of PRO'. In Larson, Iatridou, Lahiri, and Higginbotham 19921-50

French, Robert: Control

dissertation, New York International46/8

and thematic

University. government.

Dissertation Doctoral Abstracts

Fukushima, Kazuhiko: 1990, 'VP-Embedding control structures in Japanese'. In Dziwirek, Katarzyna, Patrick Farrell, and Errapel Mejias-Bikandi (eds.): Grammatical relations: a cross-theoretical

perspective. Stanford, Ca.: Center for the Study of Language and Information

Faarlund, Jan-Terje: 1985, 'Imperative and control: first person imperatives in Norwegian'. Nordic journal of linguistics 8/2:149-160

Goodluck, Helen and Dawn Behne: 1988, 'Thematic roles, external argument and control of adjuncts: a case of late-acquired knowledge'. Cahiers linguistiques d'Ottawa 16/103-114

Goodluck, Helen and Dawn Behne: 1992, 'Development in control and extraction'. In Weissenborn, Jiirgen, Helen Goodluck, and Tom Roeper (eds.): Theoretical issues in language acquisition. Hillsdale N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum 153-73

Goodluck, Helen and Arhonto Terz: 1996, 'Controlled PRO and the acquisition of Greek'. In Stringfellow, Andy, Dalia Cahana-Amitay, Elizabeth Hughes, and Andrea Zukowski (eds.): Boston University

conference on language development 20. Boston, Mass.: Boston University 261-71

Green, Georgia M.: 1992, 'Purpose infinitives and their relatives'. In Brentari, Diane, Gary N. Larson, and Lynn A McLeod (eds.): The joy

of grammar: a festschrift in honor of James D. McCawley.

Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins 95-127 Grimshaw, Jane: 1990, Argument structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT

Press

Contra/ - A Bibliography 65

Haegeman, Liliane: 1981, 'Modal shall and speaker's control'. Journal of English linguistics 15 l 4-9

Haider, Hubert: 1991, 'PRO-BLEME?'. In Fanselow, Gisbert and

Sascha W. Felix (eds.): Struktur und merkmale syntaktischer kategorien. (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 39) Ttibingen,

Germany: Narr 121-143

Hale, K.: 1992, 'Subject obviation, switch reference, and control'. In Larson, Iatridou, Lahiri, and Higginbotham 1992 51-78

Hanssen, Eskil A: 1972, "Den underordnete setning: om forholdet

mellom at-setning og infinitivfrase i norsk". Norsk tidsskrift for sprogvidenslcap. 26:165-77

Hasegawa, Nobuko: 1981, 'The VP complement and 'control'

phenomena: beyond trace theory'. Linguistic analysis 7/1:85-120 Hashemipour, Margaret Marie: [1989] 1990, Pronominalization and

control in Modern Persian (Persian syntax). Doctoral dissertation,

University of California, San Diego. Dissertation Abstracts

International50/9 Higginbotham, James: 1989, 'Reference and control'. Rivista di

linguistica 1/2:301-326

Higginbotham, James: 1992, 'Reference and control'. In Larson, Iatridou, Lahiri, and Higginbotham 1992 79-108

Hinrichs, Erhard and Tsuneko Nakazawa: 1994 'Lexical

properties of control constructions in German'.

manuscript, Ti.ibingen, Germany and Tokyo, Japan

and syntactic

Unpublished

Hoeing, Robert G.: 1989, [Review of Shannon 1987] Language 65/3:841 Hoeing, Robert G.: [1985] 1991, 'Out of control: control theory and its

implications for empty categories, expletives, and missing subjects in German'. In Antonsen, Eimer H. and Hans Henrich Hock (eds.):

Stæfcræft: studies in Germanic linguistics: select papers from second symposium on Germanic linguistics, University of Chicago, 24 April 1985, and University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 3-4 October 1986. (Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic

66 Jan Engh and Kristian Emil Kristoffersen

science. Series 4: Current issues in linguistic theory 79) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins

Hoeing, Robert G.: 1994, Empty, expletive, and mzssmg subjects in German. (Berkeley insights in linguistics and semiotics 11) New York, N.Y.: P. Lang

Horn, G. M.: 1979, 'Functional structure and control'. In Engdahl,

Elisabet and M. J. Stein (eds.): To E. Bach. Papers presented to Emmon Bach by his students. (University of Massachusetts occational papers in linguistics. Special editions.) Amherst, Mass.: GLSA,

University of Massachusetts

Hsu, Jennifer Ryan: 1981, 'The development of structural principles

related to complement subject interpretation'. Doctoral dissertation,

City University of New York

Hsu, Jennifer Ryan, Helen Smith Cairns, and Robert Fiengo: 1985, 'The

development of grammars underlying children's interpretation of

complex sentences'. Cognition 20/25-48 Hsu, Jennifer Ryan, Helen Smith Cairns, Sarita Eisenberg, and Gloria

Schlisselberg: 1989, 'Control and coreference in early child language'.

Journal of child language 16/3:599-622 Hsu, Jennifer Ryan and Helen Smith Cairns: 1990, 'Interpreting PRO:

from strategy to structure'. In Bendix, Edward H. (ed.): The Uses of linguistics. (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 583) New

York, N. Y.: New York Academy of Sciences 109-128

Huang, Cheng-Te James: 1984, 'On the distribution and reference of

empty pronouns'. Linguistic inquiry 15/531-574 Huang, Cheng-Te James: 1989, 'Pro drop in Chinese: a generalized

control approach'. In Jaeggli, Osvaldo and Kenneth J. Safir (eds.): The null subject parameter. (Studies in natural language and linguistic theory 15) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel185-214

Huang, Cheng-Te James: 1992, 'Complex predicates in control'. In

Larson, Iatridou, Lahiri, and Higginbotham 1992 109-147 Huang, Yan: 199la, 'A Neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora'.

Journal of linguistics 27/301-335

Contra/ - A Bibliography 67

Huang, Yan: 1991b, 'A Pragmatic analysis of control :in Chinese'. In

Verschueren, Jef (ed.): Levels of linguistic adaptation: selected papers from the international pragmatics conference, Antwerp, August 17-22, 1987. II (Pragmatics and beyond: new series 6, 2) Amsterdam, The

Netherlands: John Benjamins 113-45

Huang, Y an: 1991c, [Review of] H. Lasnik, Essays on anaphora. Journal of linguistics 271228-233

Huang, Yan: 1992a, 'Aga:inst Chomsky's typology of empty categories'.

Journal of pragmatics 17 ll-29

Huang, Yan: 1992b, 'Hanyu de kongfanchou [Empty categories in

Chinese]'. Zhongguo yuwen 51384-393

Huang, Y an: 1993, [Review of J. H:intikka and G. Sandu: Methodology of linguistics] Journal of pragmatics 19 l 487-493

Huang, Yan: 1994a, The Syntax and pragmatics of anaphora: a study with special reference to Chinese. (Cambridge studies in linguistics 70). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press

Huang, Y an: 1994b, [Review of J. Koster andE. Reuland: Long-distance anaphora.] Journal of pragmatics 221667-684.

Huang, Yan: 1995, 'On null subjects and null objects in generative

grammar'. Linguistics 33 l l 081-1123

Huang, Yan: Forthcoming. Anaphora: a cross-linguistic study. (Oxford studies in typology and linguistic theory). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press

Hudson, R. A.: 1969, 'Linguistic form: paradigmatic'. In Meetham, AR.

and R. A Hudson (eds.): Encyclopedia of linguistics. Information and control. Oxford, UK: Pergamon 273-276

Hudson, R. A.: 1969, 'Linguistic form: syntagmatic'. In Meetham, AR.

and R. A Hudson (eds.): Encyclopedia of linguistics. Information and control. Oxford, UK: Pergamon 276-278

Hurtado, Alfredo: 1981, 'Le Contr6le par les clitiques'. Revue quebecoise de linguistique 1111:9-67

Hurtado, Alfredo: 1989, 'El control mediante cliticos'. Revista Argentina de l inguistica 5 l l-2:13-56

68 Jan Engh and Kristian Emil Kristoffersen

Hust, Joel and Michael Brame: 1976, 'Jackendoff on interpretive semantics'. Linguistic analysis 2/243-277

Iwakura, Kunihiro: 1985, 'The binding theory and PRO'. Linguistic

analysis 15 Il :29-55 Jackendoff, Ray: 1972, Semantic interpretation in generative grammar.

Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press

Jackendoff, Ray: 1987, 'The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory'. Linguistic inquiry 18/369-411

Jackendoff, Ray: 1990, Semantic structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT

Press

Jacobson, Pauline: 1992a, 'Raising without movement'. In Larson, Iatridou, Lahiri, and Higginbotham 1992 149-194

Jacobson, Pauline: 1992b, 'The Lexical entailment theory of control and

the tough-construction'. In Sag, Ivan A and Anna Szabolcsi (eds.):

Lexical matters. (CSLI lecture notes 24) Stanford, Ca.: Center for

Study of Language and Information 269-300

Jayaseelan, K.-A.: 1984, 'Control in some sentential adjuncts of Malayalam'. In Brugman, Claudia, Monica Maccaulay, Amy

Dahlstrom, Michele Emanahan, Birch Moonwoman, and Catherine

O'Connor (eds.): Proceedings of the tenth annua! meeting of the

Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 17-20, 1984. Berkeley. Berkeley,

Ca.: Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California 623-633 Jensen, Margaret Teller Stong: [1980] 1981, Phrasal compounds in

French and the theory of contra!. Doctoral dissertation, University of

Colorado at Boulder. Dissertation Abstracts International41/8 Jones, Charles: 1988, 'Thematic relations in control'. In Wilkins1988 75-

89 Joseph, Brian: 1992, 'Diachronic perspectives on control'. In Larson,

Iatridou, Lahiri, and Higginbotham 1992 195-234

Jung, Hee Won: 1990 'Hankwuke nayphomwun thongceykwumwunuy

yuhyeng: HPSG-lul cwungsimulo [Types of embedded control

constructions in Korean: An HPSG Approach]'. Master's thesis, Seoul

National University. Seoul, Korea

Contra/ - A Bibliography 69

Kathman, David: [1992] 1996, 'Control in autolexical syntax'. In

Schiller, Eric, Elisa Steinberg, and Barbara Need (eds.): Autolexical

theory: ideas and methods (Trends in linguistics, studies and

monographs 85) Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gmyter 103-129

Kawasaki, Noriko: 1993, Control and arbitrary interpretation in

English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts,

Amherst, Mass. Dissertation Abstracts International54/2

Kayne, Richard S.: 1981, 'Binding, quantifiers, clitics and control'. In

Heny, Frank (ed.): Binding and filtering. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT

Press 191-211

Kim, Jong-Hyeon: 1988, Kwukeuy nayphomwun thongceywa

mwuceyhan uyconkwankye [Control and unbounded dependency in

Korean]. Master's thesis, Seoul National University. Seoul, Korea

Kim, Kyoung-Hak: 1990, 'Lexical functional grammar and control in

Korean'. Language Research

Kim, Young-Sun: 1991, 'On some differences between control and

predication'. Language research 27/3:463-79

Kiss, Tibor: 1995, Infinite Komplementation. Neue Studien zum

deutschen Verbum infinitum. (Linguistische Arbeiten 333) Tiibingen,

Germany: Niemeyer

Klein, Eberhard: 1981, 'Aspekte der control-Problematik in Satzen mit

subjektlosen gerundialen Komplementen im Englischen'. In Kohrt,

Manfred and Jiirgen Lenerz (eds.): Sprache: Formen und Strukturen:

Akten des 15. linguistischen Kolloquiums, Miinster 1980, I.

(Linguistische Arbeiten 98) Tiibingen, Germany: Niemeyer 141-150

Klein, Ewan and Ivan A Sag: 1985, 'Type-driven translation,'

Linguistics and philosophy 8/2:163-201

Koopman, Hilda: 1982, 'Control from COMP and comparative syntax'.

In Kaye, Jonathan Derek, Hilda Koopman, and Dominique Sportiche

(eds.): Projet sur les langues kru: premier rapport. Montreal, Canada:

Departement de la linguistique, Universite du Quebec a Montreal

203-232

70 Jan Engh and Kristian Emil Kristoffersen

Koopman, Hilda: 1983, 'Control from COMP and comparative syntax'.

Linguistic Review 2/4:365-391

Kopytro, R.: 1989, 'Control theory and the infinitival complementation

in the language of William Shakespeare's plays'. Kwartalnik N eofilologiczn 36 l l :25-34

Kortmann, Bernd: 1991, Free adjuncts and absolutes in English: problems of control and interpretation. London, UK: Routledge

Koster, Jan: 1984, 'On binding and control'. Linguistic inquiry 15/3:417-

459

Kostopoulou, Erato: 1989, 'Some consequences of the lack of PRO in

Modem Greek'. Cahiers linguistiques d'Ottawa 17/33-53

Kristoffersen, Kristian Emil: 1996, 'Kontroll og kontrollteori'. NORskrift 89:7-18

Kristoffersen, Kristian Emil: Forthcoming. Syntactic and semantic aspects of Old Norse infinitivals. Doctoral thesis, Universitetet i

Oslo, Norway

Kung, Xue-Lei: 1991, 'Null subjects and control theory in Chinese'.

CUNYForum: papers in linguistics 16/60-69

Kopcke, Klaus-Michael and Klaus-Uwe Panther: 1991, 'Kontrolle und

Kontrollwechsel im Deutschen'. Zeitschrift fur Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 44/2:143-166

Ladusaw, William A.: 1987, 'Inference patterns from infinitival complements'. In Crowhurst, Megan (ed.): Papers from the sixth West Coast conference on formal linguistics. Stanford, Ca.: Stanford Linguistics Association 163-71

Ladusaw, William A and Nora C. England: 1985, 'Control and

complementation in Kusaal'. In Odden, David (ed.): Current approaches to African linguistics, IV. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:

Foris 239-246

Ladusaw, William A and David R. Dowty: 1988, 'Toward a

nongrammatical account of thematic roles'. In Wilkins 1988 62-74.

Lamiroy, Beatrice: 1987, 'The Complementation of aspectual verbs in

French'. Language 63/2:278-298

Contra/ - A Bibliography 71

Larson, Richard K.: 1991, 'Promise and the theory of control'. Linguistic

inquiry 22/103-139.

Larson, Richard K., Sabine Iatridou, Utpal Lahiri, and James

Higginbotham (eds.): 1992, Control and grammar. (Studies in

linguistics and philosophy 48) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer

Lasnik H.: 1992, Two notes on control and binding'. In Larson, Iatridou,

Lahiri, and Higginbotham 1992 235-252

Law, Paul: [1993] 1996, 'On grammatical relations in Malagasy control

structures'. In Burgess, Clifford S., Katarzyna Dziwirek, and Donna

Gerdts (eds.): Grammatical relations: theoretical approaches to

empirical questions. Stanford, Ca.: Center for the Study of Language

and Information Leacock, Claudia: 1991, Lexically bas ed parsing with application to

infinitival control constructions in English. Doctoral dissertation, City

University of New York. Dissertation Abstracts International51/ll

Lee, Myung-Hwan: 1991, Yengeuy thongceyhyensangey kwanhan

yenkwu: GPSG-wa HPSG-uy cepkun [A Study on control .in English:

GPSG and HPSG]. Doctoral thesis, Kyunghee University. Seoul,

Korea Levinson, Stephen C.: 1987, 'Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora:

a partial pragmatic reduction of binding and control phenomena'.

Journal of linguistics 23 379-434 Lonzi, Lidia., M. Ester Zanobio, and Erminio Capitani: 1994, 'Semantic

vs. syntactic subject: a comprehension test based on control

constructions'. Brain and language. 47/1:32-51 Lødrup, Helge: 1991, 'Clausal complements .in English and Norwegian'.

Norsk lingvistisk tidsskrift 9/105-136. Lødrup, Helge: [1995], 'Properties of Norwegian auxiliaries'. In

Ott6sson, Kjartan Gyouson, Ruth Vatvedt Fjeld, and Ame Torp

(eds.): Forthcoming. Proceedings from the IX. conference on general

and Nm·dic linguistics. Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo 216-228 Mair, Christian 1987. 'Instabile Infinitivkonstruktionen im heutigen

Englisch'. Linguistische Berichte 111:381-397

72 Jan Engh and Kristian Emil Kristoffersen

Mair, Christian: 1990a, 'A Contrastive analysis of object control in

English and German'. Papers and studies in contrastive linguistics

25/85-101

Mair, Christian: 1990b, 'Die unterschiedliche Bedeutung des Kontextes bei der Bestimmung des logischen Subjekts verbspezifischer

Infinitivkonstruktionen im Englischen und Deutschen'. In Bahner, Werner, Joachim Schildt, and Dieter Viehweger (eds.): Proceedings of

the fourteenth international congress of linguists. Berlin/GDR,

August 10- August 15, 1987. Berlin, Germany: Akademie-Verlag

Manzini, Maria Rita: 1983, 'On control and control theory'. Linguistic

inquiry 14:3, 421-446 Manzini, Maria Rita: 1986, 'On control and binding theory'. In Berman,

S., J. Choe, and J. McConough (eds.): Papers from the sixteenth

annual meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society. Amherst,

Mass.: GLSA, University of Massachusetts

McCloskey, James and Peter Sells: 1988, 'Control and A-chains in Modem Irish'. Natura/ language and linguistic theory 6/2:143-189

McDaniel, Dana, Helen Smith Cairns, and Hsu, Jennifer Ryan: 1990-

1991, 'Control principles in the grammars of young children'. Language acquisition l/ 4:297-336

McDaniel, Dana, Helen Smith Cairns: 1990, 'Processing and acquisition of control structures by young children'. In Frazier, Lyn and Jill De Villiers (eds.): Language processing and language acquisition.

(Studies in theoretical psycholinguistics 10) Dordrecht, The

Netherlands: Kluwer 313-23 Mendikoetxea, Amaya: 1994, 'Impersonality in non-finite contexts: The

Spanish se construction in con tro l and raising environments'. In Mazzola, Michael L. (ed.): Issues and theory in romance linguistics:

selected papers from linguistic symposium on Romance languages

XXIII, Aprill-4, 1993. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press

385-401 Minkoff, Seth Aaron: 1994, How same so-called 'thematic roles' that

generate animate arguments are generated, and how they inform

Contra/ - A Bib/iography 73

binding and contra!. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. In MIT Working papers in linguistics

Mohanan, Karuvannur P.: 1982, 'Grammatical relations in

Malayalam'. In Bresnan 1982b 504-589

Mohanan, Karuvannur P.: 1983, 'Functional and anaphoric control'.

Linguistic inquiry 14/4:641-67 4

Mohanan, Karuvannur P.: 1985, 'Remarks on control and control the o ry'. Linguistic inquiry16 l 4:637-648

Morales, Amparo: 1989, 'Algunas consideraciones sobre la alternancia

subjuntivo-infinitivo en las construcciones con para'. Nueva revista

de filologia hispanica 37/1:27-42 Motsch, Wolfgang (ed.): 1989, Wortstruktur und Satzstruktur.

(Linguistische Studien. Reihe A. Arbeitsberichte 194) Berlin, Germany: Akademie-V er lag

Muysken, Pieter: 1981, 'The Theory of morphological control'. In Burke,

Victoria and James Pustejovsky (eds.): Proceedings of the eleventh

annual meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society. Amherst,

Mass.: GLSA, University of Massachusetts 219-234

Nedjalkov, Igor: 1995, 'Converbs: control and interpretation [Review of

Kortmann 1991]'. Journal of pragmatics 24/433-450

Negrao, Esmeralda Vailati: 1986, Anaphora in Brazilian Portuguese

complement structures. Doctoral dissertation, University of

Wisconsin, Madison, Wi.

Neidle, Carol: 1982, 'Case agreement in Russian'. In Bresnan 1982b 391-

426 Nichols, Johanna: 1982, 'Prominence, cohesion and control: object­

controlled predicate nominals in Russian'. In Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A Thompson (ed.): Studies in transitivity. (Syntax and

Semantics 15) New York, N.Y.: Academic Press 319-350 Nikanne, Urpo: 1990, Zones and tiers: a study of thematic structure.

(Studia fennica 35) Helsinki, Finland: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden

Se ura

74 Jan Engh and Kristian Emil Kristoffersen

Nikanne, Urpo: 1995: 'Action tier formation and argument linking'.

Studia linguistica 1:1-31.

Nikanne, Urpo: 1996a, 'Lexical conceptual structure and syntactic

arguments'. Unpublished manuscript, University of Oslo, Norway

Nikanne, U rp o: 1996b, 'Depictive adjuncts in Finnish'. Unpublished manuscript, University of Oslo, Norway

Nishigauchi, Taisuke: 1984, 'Control and the thematic domain'.

Language 60/215-250.

Oh, Sunseek: 1988, 'A Promising control theory'. In MacLeod, Lynn,

Gary Larson, and Diane Brentari (eds.): Chicago Linguistic Society 24th regional meeting 1988 Chicago, Il.: CLS 290-303

Panevova, Jarmila: 1986, 'The Czech infinitive in the functions of

objective and the rules of coreference'. In Mey, Jacob L. (ed.):

Language and discourse: test and protest: a festschrift for Petr Sgall. (Linguistic and literary studies in Eastern Europe 19) Amsterdam, The

Netherlands: John Benjamins 123-42 Panther, Klaus-Uwe: 1994, Kontrollphiinomene im Englischen und

Deutschen aus semantisch-pragmatischer Perspektive. Tlibingen,

Germany: Narr Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Klaus-Michael Kopcke: 1993, 'A cognitive

approach to obligatory control phenomena in English and German'.

Folia linguistica 27:57-105

Park, Hyom-yong: 1991, 'Control agreement principle and case feature'.

Language research 27/3:521-45 Pellegrino, Elizabeth Minassian: [1986] 1987, Control verbs in English.

Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.

Dissertation Abstracts International 48 l 6 Philippaki-Warburton, Irene: 1995, 'On control in Modem Greek'.

Reading University working papers in linguistics 2:143-158 Philippaki-Warburton, Irene and Georgia Catsimali: [1995] 'Control in

ancient Greek'. To appear in Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Greek linguistics, Salzburg.

Contra! - A Bibliography 75

Pingkarawat, Namtip: 1990, Empty noun phrases and the theory of

contra!, with special reference to Thai. Doctoral dissertation,

University of Illiois at Urbana-Champaign. Dissertation Abstracts

International50/7 Pollard, Carl and Ivan A Sag: 1994, Head-driven phrase structure

grammar. (Studies in contemporary linguistics.) (Center for the Study

of Language and Information, Stanford, Ca.) Chicago, Il.: University

of Chicago Press [Chapter 7 is a revised version of Sag and Pollard

1991]

Polo-Figueroa, Nicolas Ignacio: [1990] 1991, La estructura del sintagma

nominal en espanol. Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa.

Dissertation Abstracts International51/12 Postal, Paul M.: 1970, 'On coreferential complement subject deletion'.

Linguistic inquiry 1:439-500. Quicoli, A Carlos: 1976, 'On Portuguese impersonal verbs'. In Scmidt­

Radefeldt, Jiirgen (ed.): Readings zn Portuguese linguistics.

Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holand 63-91 Quicoli, A Carlos: 1982, The structure of complementation. (Sig/a:

studies in generative linguistic analysis 3) Ghent, Belgium: Story­

Scientia Radford, Andrew: 1981, Transformational grammar. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press Randriamasimanana, Charles: 1986, The Causatives of Malagasy.

(Oceanic linguistic special publication 21) Honolulu, Ha: University of

Hawaii Press Reinhart, Tanya and Eric Reuland: 1993, 'Reflexivity'. Linguistic inquiry

24/4:657-720 Risch, Gabriela: 1989, 'Kontrollverhalten in infiniten

Komplementkonstruktionen'. In Motsch 1989 159-187

Rooryck, Johan: 1988a, 'Control and binding; relative clauses'. Leuvense

bijdragen 77/2:191-197 Rooryck, Johan: 1988b, 'Une note sur les verbes de correlation'. Revue

Roumaine de linguistique 33/3:151-153

76 Jan Engh and Kristian Emil Kristoffersen

Rooryck, Johan: 1989, 'Les Verbes a montee et a controle 'ambigus". Revue quebecoise de linguistique 18:1, 189-207

Rooryck, Johan: 1990, 'Montee et controle: une nouvelle analyse'. Le Franr;ais moderne 58/1-2:1-28

Rooryck, Johan: 1991, 'Out of control: deriving the reference of unexpressed infinitival subjects'. [Unpublished manuscript]

Rooryck, Johan: [1990] 1992, 'On the distinction between raising and control'. In Hirschblihler, Paul and Konrad Koerner (eds.): Romance languages and modern linguistic theory: papers from 20th linguistic symposium on Romance languages, Ottawa, 10-14 Apr. 1990. (Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series 4: Current issues in linguistic Theory 91) Amsterdam, The

Netherlands: John Benjamins 225-50

Rooryck, Johan: (to appear) 'How to get control without spending a module for it'. In Coopmans, Peter, Martin Everaert, and Jane

Grimshaw (eds.): Lexical insertion and lexical specification. Hillsdale,

N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Rosenbaum, Peter S.: 1967, The grammar of English predicate

complement constructions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Rosenbaum, Peter S.: 1970, 'A principle governing deletion in English

sentential complementation'. In Jacobs, R.A. and P.A. Rosenbaum

(eds.): Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham,

Mass.: Ginn Rudanko, Juhani: 1989, Complementation and case Grammar. Albany,

N.Y.: State University of NewYork Press Rudanko, Juhani: 1993, 'Reducing someone to grovelling: aspects of an

object-control pattern in Present-Da y English'. English studies 74/5:485-95

Rutten, Jan [Jean-Baptist Ignatius Wilhelmus Cornelis Maria Rutten]:

1991, Infinitival complements and auxiliaries. (Amsterdam studies in generative grammar 4) Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Universiteit

van Amsterdam

Control - A Bibliography 77

Ruwet, Nicolas: 1991, Raising and control revisited. In: Syntax and human experience. [Translated and edited by John Goldsmith]

Chicago Il.: University of Chicago Press 56-81

Rognvaldsson, Eirikur: 1991, 'Quirky subjects in Old Icelandic'. In

Sigurosson, Halldor Armann. (ed.): Papers from the twelfth Scandinavian conference of linguistics. Reykjavik, Iceland: Hask6la

Islands Ruz ic a, Rudolf: 1982, 'KontroHprinzipien infiniter Satzformen:

Infinitiv und Gerundium (deepric astie) irn Russischen und in anderen

slavischen Sprachen'. Zeitschrift fur Slawistik 27/373-411

Ruz ic ka, Rudolf: 1983a, 'Autonomie und Interaktion von Syntax und

Semantik'. In Ruz ic ka, Rudolf and W. Motsch (eds.):

Untersuchungen zur Semantik. (Studia Grammatika 22) Berlin,

Germany: Akademie-Verlag 15-59

Ruz ic ka, Rudolf: 1983b, 'Remarks on control'. Linguistic inquiry 14:309-

324

Ruz ic ka, Rudolf: 1984a, 'Illokutionare Kraft und Subjektkontrolle.

'Bitten' und 'Fr agen". Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 44 59-62

Ruz ic ka, Rudolf: 1984b, 'Zwischen Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik.

Interaktion der "module"'. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte43/59-62 Ruz ic ka, Rudolf: 1985, 'Komplikation nnd Interaktion in der russischen

Grammatik'. Zeitschrift fur Slawistik 30/1:17-29

Ruz ic ka, Rudolf: 1986, 'Control in competing frameworks'. In Mey,

Jacob L. (ed.): Language and discourse: test and protest: a festschrift for Petr Sgall. (Linguistic and literary studies in Eastern Europe 19)

Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins 101-121

Sag, Ivan A and Carl Pollard: 1991, 'An Integrated theory of

complement control'. Language 67/1:63-113

Sajavaara, Kari: 1988, 'Control and context'. In Klegraf, Josef and

Dietrich Nehls (eds.): Essays on the English language and applied linguistics on the occasion of Gerhard Nickel' s 60th birthday. Heidelberg, Germany: Julius Groos 24-30

78 Jan Engh and Kristian Emil Kristoffersen

Sakaguchi, Mari: 1990, 'Control structures in Japanese'. In Hoji, Hajime

(ed.): Japanese/Korean linguistics. Stanford, Ca.: Center for Study of Language and Information 303-17

Saxon, Leslie: 1986, 'Control and agreement in Dogrib'. In Proceedings of the first Eastern States conference on linguistics. Columbus, Oh.:

Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University) 128-139

Shamir, E.: 1969, 'Linguistic form: algebraic linguistics'. In Meetham,

A.R. and R.A. Hudson (eds.): Encyclopedia of linguistics. Information and control. Oxford, UK: Pergamon 270-272

Shannon, Thomas F.: [1982] 1983, The Syntax and semantics of permlsszve verbs in German. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana

University. Dissertation Abstracts International43/8

Shannon, Thomas F.: 1987, Aspects of complementation and control in Modern German: The syntax and semantics of permissive verbs. (Goppinger Arbeiten zur Germanistik 424) Goppingen, Germany: Alfred Kfunmerle

Shannon, Thomas F.: 1988a, 'Prolegomena to a theory of control'. In

Gentry, Francis G. (ed.): Semper idem et novus: festschrift for Frank Banta. (Goppinger Arbeiten zur Germanistik 481) Goppingen,

Germany: Alfred Kiimmerle Shannon, Thomas F.: 1988b, 'Towards a realistic theory of control'. In

Henderson, Michael M.T. (ed.); 1987 Mid-America linguistics conference papers. Lawrence, Ka.: Department of Linguistics,

University of Kansas 276-293

Sherman, Janet Cohen: 1983, The Acquisition of control in complement sentences: the ro le of structural and lexical factors. Doctoral

dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.

Sherman, Janet Cohen and Barbara Lust: 1986, 'Syntactic and lexical constraints on the acquisition of control in complement sentences'. In

Lust, Barbara (ed.): Studies in the acquisition of anaphora, I: defining the constraints 279-308

Sherman, Janet Cohen and Barbara Lust: 1993 'Children are in control'.

Cognition 46/1:1-51

Contra/ - A Bibliography 79

Sherman, Janet Cohen and Barbara Lust: In preparation [1993] 'A

Proposal: how children learn "promise'"

Shin, Soo-Song and Min-Haeng Lee: 1985, 'The logical form: a theory

and its application to German'. Language research 21 l 4:461-478 Siebert-Ott, Gesa Maren: 1983, 'Kontrollprobleme in infiniten

Komplernentkonstruktionen im Deutschen'. In Jongen, Rene, Sabine De Knop, Peter H. Neide, and Marie Paule Quix (eds.): Akten des 17.

linguistischen Kolloquiums, Brussel, 1982 I , Sprache, Diskurs und

Text (Linguistische Arbeiten 133-134) Tiibingen, Germany: Nierneyer

99-109

Siebert-Ott, Gesa: 1983/1985, 'Bernerkungen zu den Elernenten einer

Theorie der Kontrolle'. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen

Linguistik. 22:127-143. Also in Abraham, Werner (ed.): Erkliirende

Syntax des Deutschen. Tiibingen, Germany: Narr 255-270

Simpson, Jane and Joan W. Bresnan: 1982/1983, 'Control and obviation

in Warlpiri'. In Flickinger, Daniel P., Marlys Macken, and Nancy Wiegand (eds.): Proceedings of the first West Coast conference on

formal linguistics. Stanford, Ca.: Linguistics Department, Stanford

University 280-291. Also in Natural language and linguistic theory

1/49-64 Soh, Dae-Young: 1989, Yengeuy thongcey, kyelsokmich mwuceyhan

uyconkwumwuney kwan han yenkwu [Control, binding, and

unbounded dependency in English: An HPSG Approach]. Master's

thesis, Kyunghee University. Seoul, Korea

Srikumar, K.: 1991, 'Con tro l in Malayalam'. International journal of

Dravidian linguistic 20/1:104-16

Stainton, Robert J.: 1995, 'A note on pedir and control in Spanish'.

Cahiers linguistiques d'Ottawa 23:11-22.

Stechow, Amim von and Dieter Wunderlich: 1989, 'Distinguo. Eine

Antwort auf Dieter Wunderlich'. Linguistische Berichte 122:330-341 Steube, Anita: [1989] 1992, 'Kompositionsprinzipien in der Semantischen

Form und das Problem der Autonomie der Semantik' In Suchsland,

80 Jan Engh and Kristian Emil Kristoffersen

Peter (ed.): Biologische und soziale Grundlagen der Sprache.

(Linguistische Arbeiten 280) Ttibingen, Germany: Niemeyer 299-309

Stowell, Tim: 1991, 'The Alignment of arguments in adjective phrases'. In Rothstein, Susan D. (ed.): Perspectives on phrase structure: heads

and licensing. (Syntax and semantics 25) San Diego, Ca.: Academic Press 105-38

Sundman, M.: 1983, 'Control, subject and voice in Swedish'. In Karlson, Fred (ed.): Papers from the seventh Scandinavian conference of

linguistics: Hanasaari, Finland, December 17-19,1982. Helsinki,

Finland: University of Helsinki, Department of General Linguistics. Publications 9:101-112

Tanaka, Shichiro: 1983, 'NP structure and principles'. Linguistic analysis

11/1:1-26 Tanaka, Shichiro: 1985, 'NP structure, the generalized control rule, and

the ECP'. Linguistic analysis 15/4:257-267 Thorpe, Alana Irene: 1992, Clitic placement in complex sentences in

Czech. Doctoral dissertation, Brown University. Dissertation Abstracts International

Torrego, Esther: 1996, 'On quantifier float in control clauses'. Linguistic

inquiry 27/1:111-126 Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido: 1987, 'Control theory. A government and

binding approach to infinitival complementation'. Antwerp papers in

linguistics 52/1-148 V anden Wyngaerd, Guido: 1990a, 'Chain formation and the distribution

of PRO'. In MIT Working papers in linguistics 12/207-222 Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido: 1990b, 'On control and binding'. In van Lit,

John, Rene Mulder, and Rint Sybesma (eds.): Proceedings of the

Leiden conference for junior

University of Leiden 155-165.

Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido:

linguists l. Leiden, The Netherlands:

1990c, PRO-legomena. Doctoral

dissertation, University of Antwerp, Belgium Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido: 1994, PRO-legomena. Distribution and

reference of infinitival subjects. (Linguistic models 19) Berlin,

Contra! - A Bibliography 81

Germany: Mouton de Gru yter [A substantially revised version of van

den Wyngaerd 1990, PRO-legomena]

van Haaften, T. and A Pauw: 1982, 'Het begrepen subject, en fantoom

in de taalbeschrijving'. Forum der letteren 23/2:124-146

Varlokosta, S. and N. Hornsteirr: 1993, 'Control in Modem Greek'. In

Schafer, A (ed.): Papers from the twentythird annua! meeting of the

North Eastern Linguistic Society. Arnherst, Mass.: GLSA, University

of Massachusetts

Vermandere, Dieter: 1996, [Review of van den Wyngaerd 1994]

Linguistics 34/167-170

Virret, Marie-Therese: 1986, 'Remarque sur deux hypotheses

parametriques'. Revue quebecoise de linguistiqu 15/2:280-287

Virret, Marie-Therese: 1988, 'Implicit arguments and control in middles

and passives'. In Birdsong, David and Jean-Pierre Montreuil (eds.):

Advances in Romance linguistics. (Publications in language sciences

28) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris 427-437

Wachtel, Tom: 1979, 'Nouns, relative clauses, and pragmatic control'.

Linguistic inquiry lO l 511-14

Webber, Bonnie L. Nash and Ivan A Sag: 1978, 'Under whose control?'.

Linguistic inquiry 9 /?:138-41

Wegener, Heide: 1989, "'Kontrolle" - semantisch gesehen. Zur

Interpretation von Infinitivkomplementen irn Deutschen'. Deutsche

Sprache 17/3:206-228

Wegener, Heide: [1987] 1988, 'Relations semantiques a l'interieur de

constructions a trois actants'. In Akten des 22. linguistischen

Kolloquiums, Paris 1987. Also in Weber, Heinrich and Ryszard Zuber

(eds.): Linguistik parisette. (Linguistische Arbeiten 203) Tubingen,

Germany: Niemeyer 121-133

Wettengel, Tanguy: [1990] 1992, 'Controle du sujet d'infinitif'. In Actes

du IVe colloque de linguistique hispanique, Limoges, 30 et 31 mars

1990. Also in Luquet, Gilles (ed.): Actualites de la recherche en

linguistique hispanique. Limoges: Presses Universitaires de Limoges

and Presses Universitaires du Limousin 253-70

82 Jan Engh and Kristian Emil Kristoffersen

Wexler, Kenneth: 1992, 'Some issues in the growth of control'. In

Larson, Iatridou, Lahiri, and Higginbotham 1992 253-296

Wilkins, Wendy. (ed.): 1988, Thematic relations. (Syntax and semantics 21) San Diego, Ca.: Academic Press

Williams, Edwin: 1987, 'Implicit arguments, the binding theory, and

control'. Natural language and linguistic theor 5/2:151-180

Williams, Edwin: 1992, 'Adjunct control'. In Larson, Iatridou, Lahiri, and

Higginbotham 1992 297-322

Williams, Edwin: 1994, Thematic structure in syntax. Cambridge, Mass.:

MIT Press

Wunderlich, Dieter: 1989, 'Arnim von Stechow, das Nichts und die Lexikalisten'. Linguistische Berichte 122/321-329

Yang, Dong Whee: 1984, 'The Extended control theory'. Language research 20/1:19-30

Y ang, Dong Whee: 1985, 'On the integrity of control theory'. In Berman,

S., J.-W. Choe, and J. McDonough (eds.): Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, Mass.: GLSA, University of

Massachusetts 15/389-408

Zabrocki, T.: 1981, 'Lexical rules of semantic interpretation. Control and

NP movement in English and Polish'. Seria filologia angielska Poznaft 14/5-167

Zec, Draga: 1987, 'On obligatory control in clausal complements'. In

Iida, Masayo, Stephen Wechsler, and Draga Zec (eds.): Working papers in grammatical theory and discourse structure: Interactions of morphology, syntax, and discourse. (CSLI lecture notes 11) Stanford,

Ca.: Center for Study of Language and Information

Contra/ - A Bibliography 83

KEY TO THE LINGUISTIC JOURNALS

Anthropological linguistics: exploring the languages of the world.

Bloomington, In.: Department of Anthropology, Indiana University

Antwerp papers in linguistics. Antwerp, Belgium: Universiteit

Antwerpen, Departement Germaanse, Afdeling Linguistiek

Arabica: revue d'etudes arabes. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill

Brain and language. New York, N.Y.: Academic Press

Bulletin de la section de linguistique de la faculte des lettres de

Lausanne. Lausanne, Switzerland

Cahiers linguistiques d'Ottawa. Ottawa, Canada: Universite d'Ottawa

Cognition: international journal of cognitive science. Amsterdam, The

Netherlands: Elsevier Computational linguistics. Morristown, N.J. : The Association for

Computational Linguistics.

CUNYForum: papers in linguistics. New York, N.Y.: Queens College

Press for the Graduate Center, City University of New York and the Department of Linguistics, Queens College

Deutsche Sprache: Zeitschrift for Theorie, Praxis, Dokumentation.

Berlin, Germany: E. Schmidt

Diachronica: international journal for historical linguistics. Amsterdam,

The Netherlands: John Benjamins English studies: a journal of English language and literature. Lisse, The

Netherlands: Swets Folia linguistica: acta Societatis linguisticae Europaeae. The Hague,

The Netherlands: Mouton Forum der letteren: tijdschrift voor taal- en letterkunde. The Hague,

The Netherlands: Smits Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik. Groningen, The

Netherlands: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Germanistische Institut

International journal of American linguistics. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press International journal of Dravidian linguistics. Trivandrum, Kerala,

India: Dravidian Linguistics Association

84 fan Engh and Kristian Emil Kristoffersen

Journal of child language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Journal of English linguistics. Athens, Ga.

Journal of linguistic research. Bloomington, In.: Indiana University Linguistics Club

Journal of linguistics. London, UK: Cambridge University Press

Journal of memory and language. New York, N.Y.: Academic Press

Journal of pragmatics: an interdisciplinary monthly of language studies. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier

Journal of semantics: an international journal for the interdisciplinary study of the semantics of natura[ language. Oxford: Oxford

University Press Kwartalnik neofilologiczny. Warszawa, Poland: Pan stwowe

Wydawnctwo Naukowe

Langages. Paris, France: Larousse

Language: journal of the Linguistic Society of America. Baltimore, Md.:

W averly Press Language acquisition: a journal of developmental linguistics. Hillsdale,

N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Language and linguistics in Melanesia: journal of the Linguistic Society

of Papua New Guinea. Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea

Language research (Ohak yon'gu). Seoul, Korea: Soul Taehakkyo Ohak

Yon'guso

Language sciences: a world journal of the sciences of language. Oxford,

UK: Pergamon Press Le Franr;ais moderne: revue de linguistique franr;aise. Paris, France: Le

Conseil international de la langue fran<;aise Leuvense bijdragen: tijdschrift voor germaanse filologie. Leuven

(Louvain), Belgium: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Faculteit

Letteren Lingua: international review of general linguistics. Amsterdam, The

Netherlands: Elsevier

Linguistic analysis Seattle, Wa.

Linguistic inquiry. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press

Contra/ - A Bibliography 85

Linguistic review. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter

Linguistics and philosophy: a journal of natural language syntax,

semantics, logic, pragmatics, and processing. Dordrecht, The

Netherlands: Kluwer

Linguistics: an interdisciplinary journal of the language sciences. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton

Linguistique en Belgique/Linguistiek in Belgie. Bruxelles, Belgium:

Di dier Linguistische Arbeitsberichte: Mitteilungsblatt der Sektion Theoretische

und angewandte Sprachwissenschaft der Karl-Marx Universitiit

Leipzig. Leipzig, Germany Linguistische Berichte: Forschung, Information, Diskussion. Wiesbaden,

Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag MIT Working papers in linguistics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT,

Department of Linguistics and Philosophy Natural language and linguistic theory. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:

Rei del Nordic journal of linguistics. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget

Norsk lingvistisk tidsskrift. Oslo, Norway: Novus forlag

Norsk tidsskrift for sprogvidenskap. Oslo, Norway

NORskrift. Oslo, Norway: Institutt for nordistikk og

litteraturvitenskap, Avdeling for nordisk språk og litteratur.

Universitetet i Oslo

Nueva revista de filologia hispanica. Mexico City D.F., Mexico:

Colegio de Mexico, Centro de Estudios Linguisticos y Literarios

Ohak yon'gu. See Language Research

Papers and studies in contrastive linguistics. Poznaft , Poland: Uniwersytet Imienia Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu

Reading University working papers in linguistics. Reading, UK Revista Argentina de linguistica. Mendoza, Argentina: Revista

Argentina de Lingliistica Revue quebecoise de linguistique. Montreal, Canada: Les Presses de

l'Universite du Quebec

86 Jan Engh and Kristian Emil Kristoffersen

Revue Roumaine de linguistique. Bucurest, Romania: Editura Academiei

Ro mane Rivista di linguistica. Turin, Italy: Rosenberg and Sellier Seria filologia angielska Poznan . Poznan, Poland: Uniwersytet Imienia

Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu Studia linguistica: a journal of general linguistics. Oxford, UK :

Blackwell Studies in the linguistic sciences. Urbana, IL: Publication of the

Department of Linguistics, University of Illinois UCL working papers in linguistics. London, UK: University College

London, Department of Phonetics and Linguistics, Linguistics Sedion

Work papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North

Dakota Session. Dallas, Tex Zeitschrift fiir Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und

Kommunikationsforschung. Berlin, Germany: Akadernie-Verlag

Zeitschrift fiir Slawistik: Beitrage zur Bohemistik und Slowakistik.

Berlin, Germany: Akademie-Verlag Zhongguo yuwen. Beijing, China: Chinese Academy of Social Sciences,

Institute of Linguistics