Proceedings of the LFG 02 Conference National Technical - CSLI ...

In (5a) there is an uninflected infinitive with a PRO subject. (5b) contains an incorporated pronominal
subject. As (5c) demonstrates, the subject of the infinitive can also be expressed by a DP in the dative
case. On such occasions agreement marking on the infinitive is optional. What I intuitively find
surprising in Komlósy’s system is that when the agent argument of the nominal derived from an
intransitive verb is expressed by an incorporated pronoun or by a lexical DP in the nominative (or
dative), he assumes that this argument is mapped onto the POSS and not the SUBJ function. On the
basis of the pattern exhibited by Hungarian infinitival constructions, I think either of the following
two alternative solutions would be more in line with this pattern attested in another non-finite domain,
and hence more appropriate. One could allow a PRO argument also to be mapped onto POSS, or they
could allow the subject to be lexically realized under certain circumstances. In the former case, both in
(3a) and in (3b) we would uniformly have the POSS function, while in the latter case we would
uniformly have the SUBJ function. Thus, it is strange that Komlósy’s account postulates a PRO SUBJ
but when the nominal is inflected (the inflection either solely marking person and number agreement
or expressing an incorporated pronoun) an entirely different function is assumed: POSS. My suspicion
is that Komlósy has been forced to employ this counter-intuitive solution in order to be able to keep
the control principles intact.
3. In Laczkó (2000) I postulate that the POSS function in the DP domain is the true
counterpart of the SUBJ function in the verbal domain. On these grounds, the verbal domain LMT
principles can be naturally adapted to the nominal domain. Only two straightforward assumptions
have to be made. A) Because of the intransitive nature of nominals, [+o] functions are unavailable. B)
Because there is only one [–r] function available, the POSS, the mapping principles follow the
ergative strategy (just like certain Hungarian participles). Its essence is that the default rule maps the
[–r] argument onto POSS (in the unaccusative and transitive cases) and there is an elsewhere
condition which maps the highest [–o] argument onto POSS in the absence of [–r] in the argument
structure (in the unergative case). Although Komlósy (1998) is not explicit on this point, it is obvious
that in his system the mapping principles will have to be made rather stipulative and peculiar to the
DP domain. In particular, the choice between the SUBJ and the POSS functions will be dependent on
the inflected vs. uninflected nature of the noun head.
3. PRO at a different level of representation
The accounts briefly presented in sections 2.1 and 2.2 have one trait in common: in order to capture
the control relations of nominals derived from transitive verbs, they introduce a marked feature in one
of the components of grammar. The former (Szabolcsi (1990) and Laczkó (1995)) extend the use of
PRO and the scope of control relations to the lexical structure (in LFG: the argument structure) of
nominals derived from transitive verbs, while the latter (Komlósy (1998)) keeps the treatment of
control relations intact, however, it introduces an otherwise unmotivated SUBJ grammatical function.
It should be obvious from the foregoing discussion that, because of the nature of the relevant
phenomena, it is inevitable for any approach to employ some marked device. Consequently, our
fundamental choice between the two main alternatives has to be determined by our preference as to
which component of grammar should be affected by the introduction of a special device. My choice
both in Laczkó (1995) and here is leaving the well-attested system of grammatical functions in the DP
domain untouched (and making the minimally required, intuitively plausible changes in applying the
principles of LMT to this domain) and extending the treatment of control phenomena to other
components of grammar. The basic motivation for this is that in my view the former area is definitely
and entirely in the scope of syntax proper while the latter (the system of various coreference
relationships) is not necessarily.
It is important to note that the accounts in both Szabolcsi (1990) and Laczkó (1995) (which
extend capturing control phenomena to lexical or argument structure) are far from being fully
developed. Moreover, the insertion of a PRO without a grammatical function in the argument
structure in the transitive case raises a significant theory internal problem: it is not clear how the
standard notion of the completeness constraint can be satisfied. For this reason in what follows I will
outline a modified account which handles the “transitive PRO element” at a different level of
representation and I will also sketch the way in which I propose control should work.
262