Overt Nominative Subjects in Infinitival Complements Cross - NYU ...

NYU Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 2: Papers in Syntax, Spring 2009 52be questionable. But P&P are correct in looking for matrix scope phenomena if the subject has acopy in the matrix (although see Bobaljik (2002) for a possibly different view). In any case, inHungarian, Italian, etc. there is no scope evidence for the presence of the overt infinitival subjectin the matrix. On the contrary, the operators attached to our overt infinitival subjects scopestrictly within the complement clause.In sum, our data differ from the Adighe and Tsez data discussed by P&P in allowing onlypronominal but not full DP subjects in control complements, in not exhibiting a division of laborbetween control verbs as to employing forward or backward control, and in not having scopalevidence for the presence of a copy of the subject of the raising complement in the matrix clause.Szabolcsi (2005 points out that a backward control analysis of the Hungarian control datais not plausible, due to the descriptive dissimilarities. Bartos (2006a,b) proposes a backwardcontrol analysis of the same data.5.2 Copy-control and copy-raisingP&P mention among others Moore’s work on Turkish copy-raising, where the copy is aresumptive pronoun. It is to be stressed that Moore 1998 discusses raising out of finitecomplements, and it seems that many other copy-raising data also involve finite (e.g.subjunctive) complements. The issues that arise there are somewhat different from what we arelooking at: finite complements typically have overt subjects.Copy-control seems less well-attested; P&P’s data come from Assamese, SLQ Zapotec,and Tongan. In the first two at least the complement clause contains full DPs, not pronouns; andthese are cases involving adjuncts. SLQ Zapotec is more difficult to compare directly, but oneshould look at it carefully in the future.5.3 P&P’s impostersP&P point out that many languages, English included, have constructions that may, from a bird’seye perspective, look similar to backward control and backward raising, but are cruciallydifferent from these.(242) There do not appear to be two major ways of learning prevalent.(243) There always appear to be two major ways of learning prevalent.Citing extensive literature P&P observe that scope interpretation argues against the claim thattwo major ways of learning has a copy in the matrix clause, i.e. there is no evidence for raising,beyond agreement. They draw similar conclusions for Modern Greek subjunctive complements.It appears that, from P&P’s descriptive perspective, our overt infinitival subjects areimposters: they do not represent backward/copy control/raising. (P&P’s use of this term is not tobe confused with Collins and Postal’s.)