On Case Transmission in Control and Raising Constructions
Adam Przepiórkowski (Polish Academy of Sciences)
In accordance with standard GB (Government and Binding) and standard HPSG (Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar) assumptions, Polish raising constructions exhibit 'case transmission', as in (1)-(2) below, where the adjective introduced by the lower verb agrees with the case of the subject of the higher verb.
(1) Maria-NOM zaczęła być miła-NOM.
Maria started be nice
`Maria started to be nice.'
(2) Pięć-ACC dziewcząt-GEN zaczęło być miłych-GEN / miłe-ACC.
Five girls started be nice nice
`Five girls started to be nice.'
According to the standard assumptions of either theory, control constructions should not allow for a similar case transmission. This prediction is only partially fulfilled in Polish: case transmission is not observed in object control constructions (cf. (3)), where the adjective occurs in the instrumental case, as it always does when the subject is PRO (cf. (4)), but it is still observed in subject control constructions, contrary to expectations (cf. (5)-(6)).
(3) Janek kazał Tomkowi-DAT być miłym-INS / *miłemu-DAT.
Janek ordered Tomek be nice nice
`Janek ordered Tomek to be nice.'
(4) [PRO Być miłym-INS] to [PRO być głupim-INS].
be nice PRED be stupid
`To be nice is to be stupid.'
(5) Janek-NOM chce być miły-NOM.
Janek wants be nice
`Janek wants to be nice.'
(6) Pięć-ACC dziewcząt-GEN chce być miłe-ACC / miłych-GEN.
five girls wants be nice nice
`Five girls want to be nice.'
Such examples are discussed by Franks 1995, but no worked out solution is proposed, and the tentative solutions suffer from a number of drawbacks, as Franks himself notes.
The aim of this paper is to propose an HPSG account of such data, which modifies the standard HPSG assumptions concerning the control/raising dichotomy. In particular, building on Hudson's 1998 observations about Icelandic and Ancient Greek, we propose to decouple two properties which are assumed to jointly differentiate between raising and control:
1. the raised element, unlike the controlling element, is assigned no semantic role by the raising verb (this is an HPSG analogue of GB's Theta-criterion);
2. the raised argument is structure-shared with its base position (an HPSG analogue of GB's movement or chain formation), while the controller is only co-indexed with the controlled element.
We argue that only the property 1. truly distinguishes between raising and control and that, in Polish, subject control, but not object control, does involve structure sharing. We show how this explains the facts (1)-(6) above and we further justify this analysis citing (after Hudson) similar Icelandic and Ancient Greek data. We formalise the account by proposing a single simple non-configurational language-specific Control Principle.
Finally, we suggest how to modify this principle in order to account for the fact that, in case of 'long distance' subject control and raising, also the 'non trasmitting', i.e., instrumental (as in (3)-(4)) option is possible, as in the following examples:
(7) a. Jan-NOM wydaje się szczęśliwy-NOM / ?*szczęśliwym-INS.
Jan seems happy happy
`John seems happy.'
b. Jan chce wydawać się szczęśliwy / ?szczęśliwym.
c. Jan chce spróbować wydawać się ?szczęśliwy / szczęśliwym.
d. Jan bał się nawet chcieć spróbować wydawać się ??szczęśliwy /
feared even want try
`John was afraid to even want to try to seem happy.'
Steven Franks. (1995). "Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax." Oxford University Press.
Richard Hudson. (1998). "Functional Control with and without Structure-Sharing." In: Anna Siewierska and Jae Jung Song (eds.), "Case, Typology and Grammar", pp.151-169. John Benjamins.