Abstract
Cross-linguistically, control complement clauses have been reported to allow overt pronominal subjects displaying the diagnostic properties of obligatory control (‘Overt PRO’; see Livitz (2011) and reference therein). Building on Gómez (2017), we extend the empirical range of the overt PRO phenomena to para finality adjunct clauses in (Colombian) Spanish. We show that the controlled subject of para-infinitives ―be it null PRO or overt PRO― has the same distribution and interpretive properties as that of complement infinitives. We bring to light unexpected asymmetries in the interpretive properties of overt vs. null PROs which we dub the Overt vs. covert PRO paradox: while they both only allow a bound variable reading under ellipsis, overt PRO, unlike null PRO, also allows a coreferential reading under association-with-focus. Here again, the data are identical in complement vs. adjunct control. We account for this paradox by putting forth the Anaphor Generalizations, which state that (i) both overt and null anaphors must be syntactically bound, and (ii) while null anaphors must be semantically bound, overt anaphors can but need not be semantically bound. We further show how the Anaphor Generalizations can be extended to account for similar patterns of interpretation reported for English and French reflexives.
Highlights
Cross-linguistically, control complement clauses have been reported to allow overt pronominal subjects displaying the diagnostics of obligatory control (‘Overt PRO’; see Livitz 2011; Mensching 2000; Szabolcsi 2009)
The goal was to test the interpretation of overt pronominal subjects in three different types of adjunct clauses, using the distribution of sloppy and strict readings to establish whether control is obligatory or not
Seul Pierre se rase. only Pierre SELF shave ‘Only Pierre shaves himself.’ (i) Sloppy reading (BVA): No one other than Pierre shaves himself. (ii) Strict reading: No one other than Pierre shaves Pierre. We show that these facts follow naturally from the Anaphor Generalizations in (10), which appeal to a distinction between syntactic vs. semantic binding, as advocated by Buring (2005) a.o
Summary
The goal was to test the interpretation of overt pronominal subjects in three different types of adjunct clauses, using the distribution of sloppy and strict readings to establish whether control is obligatory or not. We apply obligatory control diagnostics to both overt and null PRO and in both complement and para-adjunct clauses to probe their distribution and interpretation. We will show that null and overt PRO subjects have identical syntactic properties across both complement and para-adjunct clauses In a nutshell, they are obligatorily c-commanded by a local controller.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.