Comparative Syntax of the Balkan Languages (Oxford ... - Cryptm.org

CONTROL AND RAISING 97b. Marie a convaincu Paul de s'en aller.Mary has convinced Paul C leave-INF'Mary convinced Paul to leave.'When the infinitival complement is used we get control of the embeddedclause by the matrix object (cf. (43b)). When the subjunctive is used coreferencewith the matrix object is possible, although marginal. In any case, the grammaticalitystatus of (43a) is more acceptable compared to that of (38). The subjectorientation of obviation with an overt C is not typical of control but is insteadreminiscent of long distance anaphora (cf. Pica 1987, Koster and Reuland 1991).Suppose then that the coreference effect with subjunctive complements is simplythe result of associating two AgrS positions. Suppose also that when C isnull it triggers I raising, which takes the features of AgrS along as free riders.From that position the $ features of the embedded subject are free to be associated(Attract) with those of the matrix subject: if they match, coreference is triggered(the anaphoric reading); if they do not, we get disjoint reference (thepronominal reading), as shown with the Greek example in (44):(44) Oelo na fiyo/fijis. MGrkwant-1SG PRT leave-lSG/leave-2SG'I want to leave/I want you to leave.'In third person singular, either reading is possible, as illustrated in (35); this isthe pattern we find with long distance reilexives, which are underspecified foranaphoric and pronominal features. Crucially, coreference with volitionals in theBalkan C-less subjunctives is not the result of control as defined in the presentpaper: control predicates have a reduced clause structure, volitional predicates donot. However, the intensional properties of volitionals still allow for the formationof a dependency between the matrix clause and the embedded that resemblesclause union (we leave aside the details of how this is implemented). It is thisconfiguration that allows for feature raising, triggering coreference.Consider next the effects of an overt C: as I have said already, an overt C lexicalizesthe operator in the lower C position. Intuitively, the presence of anovert C gives the complement the flavor of a distinct and separate clause.Coreference is excluded for the simple reason that an overt (nonaffixal) C blocksmovement. If I movement is blocked, the ej) features of AgrS cannot move cither,and they cannot be associated with the matrix clause. The lexical C thenbecomes an obviator, giving rise to disjoint reference. The same explanation extendsto the French subjunctives in (38) above. The important difference betweenthe Balkan languages and French (and the other Romance languages) is that theformer can have a null C, while the latter cannot. The only way to de rive coreference,then, is to use the infinitival form. A similar account extends to theuse of for in English infinitivals (with the possibility of having a null for withwant predicates; cf. Kayne 1984). Note that when/o/' is used the subject mustbe overtly realized, since English is not a pro-drop language. However, thesubject in this case is marked with accusative and not nominative:(45) / prefer for him/*he to go.