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

CONTROL AND RAISING 101interpretation between (33) and (i): in the latter case the embedded clause can bearpast tense subjunctive:(ii) Fenete na dnlepsan.seem-3SG PRT worked-3PL'It seems that they have worked.'(iii)' l ''Fenonde na dnlepsan.seem-3PL PRT worked-3PLAs (iii) shows, if there is long distance agreement, the na-clause cannot be in the pasttense. If this happens, then the embedded clause must have an argument position forthe subject, presumably as the result of the EPP.12. Note that there are dialects of English, such as Belfast English that allow forthe for to construction with obligatory control (Henry 1995). However, it is reasonableto assume that in these dialects for occurs in a lower position, perhaps being theequivalent of the Balkan subjunctive particles.13. As has been pointed out in the literature, coreference is possible in this contextif a modal is used in the embedded clause, or the embedded subject is stressed, orone of the subjects is passivized. or the matrix verb is in the conditional form (Ruwet1984, Farkas 1992b, among others). This is illustrated with a French example (fromFarkas 1992b) and a Romanian one (from Dobrovie-Sorin (this volume)):(i) Je veux que je pnisse partir. Fie1 want that I can-SUBJ leave'I want to be able to leave.'(ii) A$ vrea ca incline sa plec la inunte. Romwould like that tomorrow PRT leave the mountains.'1 would like to leave for the mountains tomorrow.'The presence of additional material makes the selectional relationship between thematrix predicate and C looser. As Dobrovie-Sorin (this volume) points out, in thiscase we are dealing with two distinct events and coreference is of the usual accidentaltype, exactly as in indicative complements.ReferencessAlexiadou, A., and E. Anagnostopoulou. 1998. "Parametrising Agr: Word Order, VMovement and EPP Checking." Natural Language and Linguistic Theory16.491-539.Arad, M. 1998. "The VP Structure and the Syntax-Lexicon Interface." Ph.D. cliss..UCL.Borer, H. 1986. "I-Subjects." Linguistic Inquiry 17.375-416.Borer. H. 1989. "Anaphoric AGR." In O. Jaeggli and K. Safir, eds., The Null SubjectParameter, 69-109. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Borer, H. 1994. "The Projection of Arguments." UMass Occasional Papers 17.19-47. University of Massachusetts, Amherst,Mass.: GLSA.Brandi, L., and P. Cordin. 1989. "Two Italian Dialects and the Null SubjectParameter." In O. Jaeggli and K. Safir, eds., The Null Subject Parameter, 111-42. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Cardinaletti. A. 1994. "Subject Positions." In GenGenP 2.1.64-78.Chomksy, N. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theorv of Governmentand Binding. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.