On the Control relation

3.7 Infinitives

3.7.2 On the Control relation

Infinitives

(147) IP NP

Shai

I

I

past

VP

V

V

tell

NP

Florian

IP

I

I

to

VP

V

V

sing

These derivations differ from the ones we’ve posited up to now for Argument movement in that they move arguments into θ-marked positions. If this is the correct account of control infinitives, then, we should adjust the condi-tions we’ve placed on Argument movement to allow these derivacondi-tions. Doing so would not only give a transparent account of the Control relation, it would also provide an account for how control infinitives satisfy the EPP and that part of the Theta Criterion that requires everyθ-role to be assigned to an argu-ment. On this view, the Control relation is just the one established by Argument movement between an argument and itsθ-marked position. This view of the Control relation is offered in Hornstein (1999) and its consequences explored in Hornstein (2000) and Boeckx and Hornstein (2003, 2004, 2006a,b).

There are circumstances where control infinitives do not involve control, however; in these circumstances the subject argument is not an argument ex-pressed elsewhere. This is the case when, for instance, the verbs taking a con-trol infinitive are passivized, as in (148).

(148) a. To eat natto shouldn’t be tried.

b. To be content is often wanted.

Infinitives

c. To be honest should be promised in a wedding vow.

In fact, whenever a control infinitive stands in subject position, its understood subject does not have to be an argument found elsewhere; (149) provides some other examples.

(149) a. To remind him of Amherst Winters bothers Pius.

b. To eat durian shouldn’t be possible.

c. To leave your shoes untied is a danger to those around you.

d. To be the largest prime number is to be very large indeed.

In these examples the subject of the infinitive is understood to have a meaning close to that which one gets in sentences like (150), as can be appreciated by comparing this example to (149b).¹²

(150) For one to eat natto shouldn’t be possible.

The understood subject of these infinitives is said to be “arbitrary.”

In (148) and (149) there is no argument that could be the understood sub-ject of the infinitive and so it is easy to see that it must get another meaning.

But there are also examples where potential controlling argument is present and yet an arbitrary reading for the understood subject of the infinitive is avail-able. That is the case for the examples in (151), for example, which may all have the same arbitrary interpretation that is found in (149).

(151) a. Elena discovered that to remind Pius of Amherst Winters bothers him.

b. Jeff thought that to eat durian shouldn’t be possible.

c. Bart remembered that to leave his shoes untied is a danger to those around him.

d. Jill knew that to be the largest prime number is to be very large indeed.

When the infinitive is a question, it may also sometimes support an arbitrary interpretation for its understood subject, as in (152).

(152) a. Jon knew how to eat live shrimp.

b. Satoshi can tell when to add vinegar to rice.

12 There is a subtle difference in the meanings of (150) and (149b), but it doesn’t seem to me that this difference resides in the meaning of the subjects.

c. Julie decided where to put the Dicentra.

These can get interpretations roughly parallel to those in (153), in which the subject is arbitrary.

(153) a. Jon knew how one can eat live shrimp.

b. Satoshi can tell when one should add vinegar to rice.

c. Julie decided where one should put the Dicentra.

The precise conditions under which the arbitrary interpretation are available are imperfectly understood. See Williams (1980, 1989) and Landau (2004) for some ideas.

Control infinitives with an arbitrary reading pose the same problem for the EPP and Theta Criterion that normal control infinitives do. They seem to violate the EPP — there is nothing in the Specifier of their IP — and because theθ-role normally assigned to the subject has no argument to bear it, they seem to violate the Theta Criterion as well. Moreover, just like normal control infinitives, they are ungrammatical if there is noθ-role for a subject argument, as (154) shows.

(154) * To seem that pigs fly is worrisome.

compare: For it to seem that pigs fly is worrisome.

Just as for normal control infinitives, then, these facts taken together suggest that there is a subject argument present in these infinitives. If such an argument is present, then the EPP and Theta Criterion could be maintained. Moreover, the ungrammaticality of examples like (154) would be explained: if there is a subject argument, then the Theta Criterion requires that there also be aθ-role assigned to it. In these cases, however, this alleged subject argument cannot be found in some unexpected position. We cannot here finger the controller as that argument because there is no controller.

A common reaction, and the one I shall adopt, is that there is a subject argument syntactically present in these examples but that it is silent.¹³ This argument is indicated by putting “PRO” in the position our syntax suggests it should be. The representation for (149b), then, would be (155).

13 For an approach that does not countenance a silent subject, see Chierchia (1984).

Infinitives

(155) IP

CP

C

e

IP

PRO I

I

to

VP

V

eat durian I

I

shouldn’t VP

V

V

be

AP

A

A

possible

I’ve decided that this infinitival clause is a CP with a silent complementizer, represented here with “e.” I’ve also shown PRO moving from the position that the externalθ-role is assigned to, Specifier of VP, to the Specifier of IP where it satisfies the EPP. I also show the infinitival CP itself moving from Specifier of AP into Specifier of IP; this claims that the infinitival gets an externalθ-role from possible and moves in order to satisfy the EPP.

We can think of PRO as being a kind of pronoun (hence its name), maybe along the lines of a silent one. Of course, if the grammar of English includes a silent pronoun, then where it can be must be heavily constrained. Otherwise, sentences such as (156) should be grammatical, with Theta Criterion satisfied by the presence of PRO in subject position or object of preposition.

(156) a. * Ran into the garden.

b. * Andre talked to.

The problem of restricting PRO’s distribution remains unsolved. In fact, the question of where PRO can be is still controversial. There is no controversy over the question of whether PRO can be found in complement positions; it seems clear that it cannot. And it also seems clear that PRO cannot be in subject position of finite clauses, at least not in English. But it’s not clear yet in which non-finite clauses PRO can be a subject.

Perhaps the most popular view presently is that PRO can stand as subject to any control infinitive, not just those that get an arbitrary interpretation. On this

view, the Control it does not reduce to a special instance of Argument Move-ment, but is instead an interpretation that PRO can receive. The representation for sentences involving Control would not be as indicated in (145) and (147), but would instead include PRO, as in (157) and (158).

(157) Shai tried to sing.

IP

NP

Shai

I

I

past

VP

V

V

try

CP

C

C

e

IP

PRO I

I

to

VP

V

V

sing

Infinitives

(158) Shai told Florian to sing

IP

NP

Shai

I

I

past

VP

V

V

tell

NP

Florian

IP

PRO I

I

to

VP

V

V

sing

Unlike the movement-based analysis of Control that (145) and (147) illustrate, the representations in (157) and (158) obey the Theta Criterion as it is now for-mulated. What we would need to do if these representations are correct is pro-duce a non-movement account of Control, an account that would emerge as part of a more general account of how PRO gets its semantic interpretation.

What we’ve discovered in this section, then, is that there is a silent pronom-inal argument in English and that this silent argument is prevented from ap-pearing in a variety of positions otherwise normally available to arguments.

Keeping in mind that this argument, PRO, cannot be in complement positions, we can partially describe its special distribution with (159).

(159) The PRO Restriction

PRO can only be in certain Specifier positions at S-structure.

Which Specifier positions PRO can be in is controversial, but it certainly doesn’t include the Specifiers of finite IP.

The PRO Restriction describes something that is peculiar to the placement of the silent argument: PRO. Let’s now look at whether the conditions we’ve

been developing to capture the placement of the non-silent arguments also hold of PRO.