The PRO-wh connection in modal existential wh-constructions

Recent discussion of obligatory control in the literature mostly concentrates on the issue of which syntactic module (movement, agreement, etc.) is responsible for the establishment of the control relation. This paper looks at the issue of control from a higher order perspective. Abandoning the presupposition that control constituents denote propositions and that, therefore, control must be syntactic, I deliver an argument in favor of the property-type analysis of control constituents and, by transitivity, for a semantic resolution of the control relation. The argument comes from modal existential wh-constructions and in particular from a strong parallelism between obligatorily controlled PRO and wh-expressions. It is revealed that PRO and wh-words form a natural class, to the exclusion of all other types of nominal expressions. This is then turned into an argument of treating PRO (and wh-words) essentially as a logical lambda-operator, naturally leading to the property theory of control. In addition, the article contributes to our understanding of the syntax, semantics, and typology of modal existential wh-constructions. It is argued that at least one type of these constructions, what I call “control MECs”, is embedded (minimally) by a complex predicate BE+FOR which expresses the state of availability (BE) which makes it possible for someone to profit (FOR) from the event characterized by the modal existential wh-construction.

[1]  Alexander Grosu,et al.  The syntax-semantics of modal existential wh constructions , 2004 .

[2]  Matthew Whelpton,et al.  Locality and Control with Infinitives of Result , 2002 .

[3]  Emmon W. Bach,et al.  Control in Montague Grammar , 1979 .

[4]  P. Kleingeld,et al.  The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , 2013 .

[5]  Catherine Rudin,et al.  Aspects of Bulgarian Syntax: Complementizers and WH Constructions , 1987 .

[6]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The Minimalist Program , 1992 .

[7]  Stefan,et al.  Q-Adverbs as Selective Binders: The Quantificational Variability of Free Relatives and Definite DPs , 2008 .

[8]  Richard Montague,et al.  The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English , 1973 .

[9]  K Abels,et al.  Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding , 2003 .

[10]  Uli Sauerland,et al.  The meaning of chains , 1998 .

[11]  Kyle Johnson,et al.  Towards deriving differences in how Wh Movement and QR are pronounced , 2012 .

[12]  Pancheva Izvorski,et al.  Free relatives and related matters , 2000 .

[13]  Donka F. Farkas,et al.  On obligatory control , 1988 .

[14]  Irene Heim,et al.  Semantics in generative grammar , 1998 .

[15]  Roumyana Pancheva More Students Attended FASL than CONSOLE , 2009 .

[16]  N. Hornstein Move! : a minimalist theory of construal , 2000 .

[17]  O. M. Tomic Balkan syntax and semantics , 2004 .

[18]  Ž. Bošković,et al.  Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Connecticut Meeting, 1997 , 1998 .

[19]  Gennaro Chierchia,et al.  Topics in the syntax and semantics of infinitives and gerunds : a dissertation , 1984 .

[20]  Susanne Wurmbrand,et al.  Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure , 2001 .

[21]  Godehard Link The Logical Analysis of Plurals and Mass Terms: A Lattice‐theoretical Approach , 2008 .

[22]  N. Hornstein Movement and Control , 1999, Linguistic Inquiry.

[23]  Sigrid Beck,et al.  Intervention Effects Follow from Focus Interpretation* , 2006 .

[24]  Roger Martin,et al.  Null Case and the Distribution of PRO , 2001, Linguistic Inquiry.

[25]  Tamina Stephenson,et al.  Control in Centred Worlds , 2010, J. Semant..

[26]  Pavel Caha,et al.  The nanosyntax of case , 2009 .

[27]  Robert Angelo Faraci,et al.  Aspects of the grammar of infinitives and f̲o̲ṟ-phases. , 1974 .

[28]  Gennaro Chierchia,et al.  Structured Meanings, Thematic Roles and Control , 1989 .

[29]  Inna Livitz Modal possessive constructions: Evidence from Russian , 2012 .

[30]  Charles Jones,et al.  Purpose Clauses: Syntax, Thematics, and Semantics of English Purpose Constructions , 1991 .

[31]  I. Landau Elements of control : structure and meaning in infinitival constructions , 1999 .

[32]  Jason Merchant,et al.  The syntax of silence : sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis , 2001 .

[33]  G. Miller,et al.  Linguistic theory and psychological reality , 1982 .

[34]  Roumyana Pancheva,et al.  Experimental Evidence for the Syntax of Phrasal Comparatives in Polish , 2011 .

[35]  J. Koster Domains and dynasties: The radical autonomy of syntax , 1987 .

[36]  Kyle Johnson,et al.  Double Objects Again , 2004, Linguistic Inquiry.

[37]  R. Šimík Czech modal existential wh-constructions as vP-level free relatives , 2008 .

[38]  Ivano Caponigro,et al.  Free Not to Ask: On the Semantics of Free Relatives and Wh-words Cross-linguistically , 2003 .

[39]  Rajesh Bhatt,et al.  Covert Modality in Non-finite Contexts , 2006 .

[40]  Gillian Ramchand,et al.  Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax , 2008 .

[41]  Werner Abraham,et al.  Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax : Proceedings from the 15th Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax , 2002 .

[42]  M. Starke Towards elegant parameters: Language variation reduces to the size of lexically‐stored trees , 2014 .

[43]  Susan Plann,et al.  Relative Clauses in Spanish Without Overt Antecedents and Related Constructions , 1980 .

[44]  Angelika Kratzer,et al.  Situations in Natural Language Semantics , 2007 .

[45]  Pauline Jacobson On the Quantificational Force of English Free Relatives , 1995 .

[46]  Christoph Schwarze,et al.  Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language , 1983 .

[47]  R. May The grammar of quantification , 1978 .

[48]  Patrick Suppes,et al.  Approaches to Natural Language , 1973 .

[49]  Jeroen Van Craenenbroeck,et al.  The crosslinguistic syntax of sluicing: Evidence from Hungarian relatives , 2006 .

[50]  I. Landau Movement Out of Control , 2003, Linguistic Inquiry.

[51]  Ivano Caponigro,et al.  The Semantic Contributions of Wh-words and Type Shifts: Evidence from Free Relatives Crosslinguistically , 2004 .

[52]  John R. Moore,et al.  What Does It Take To Be A Dative Subject , 2000 .

[53]  Barbara H. Partee,et al.  Anaphora and Semantic Structure , 2008 .

[54]  大津 由紀雄 The proceedings of the third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics , 2002 .

[55]  Sigrid Beck,et al.  Presupposition Projection and the Interpretation of 'which'-­Questions , 1998 .

[56]  Andreas Haida,et al.  The Indefiniteness and Focusing of Question Words , 2008 .

[57]  R. Larson 'Promise' and the theory of control , 1991 .

[58]  Wendy K. Wilkins,et al.  Control, PRO, and the Projection Principle , 1986 .

[59]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Lectures on Government and Binding , 1981 .

[60]  J. Koster On binding and control , 1984 .

[61]  Stephen Robert Berman,et al.  On the semantics and logical form of {\it wh\/} -clauses , 1991 .

[62]  IDAN LANDAU,et al.  The Scale of Finiteness and the Calculus of Control , 2004 .

[63]  Radek Šimík,et al.  Modal existential wh-constructions , 2011 .

[64]  Jeroen Groenendijk,et al.  On the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers , 1984 .

[65]  Arnim von Stechow,et al.  Semantik: Ein Internationales Handbuch Der Zeitgenössischen Forschung , 1991 .

[66]  C. L. Hamblin QUESTIONS IN MONTAGUE ENGLISH , 1976 .

[67]  Željko Bošković,et al.  Selection and the categorial status of infinitival complements , 1996 .

[68]  Ray Jackendoff,et al.  Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar , 1972 .