Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 12
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Landau, Idan 2016. Agreement at PF: An Argument from Partial Control. Syntax, Vol. 19, Issue. 1, p. 79.

    2015. Lexical-Functional Syntax.

    Asudeh, Ash and Toivonen, Ida 2012. Copy raising and perception. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, Vol. 30, Issue. 2, p. 321.

    Lødrup, Helge 2011. Non-Transformational Syntax.

    Andrews, Avery D. 2010. Propositional glue and the projection architecture of LFG. Linguistics and Philosophy, Vol. 33, Issue. 3, p. 141.

    Boeckx, Cedric and Hornstein, Norbert 2006. The Virtues of Control as Movement. Syntax, Vol. 9, Issue. 2, p. 118.

    Culicover, Peter W. and Jackendoff, Ray 2006. Turn Over Control to the Semantics!. Syntax, Vol. 9, Issue. 2, p. 131.

    Davies, William D. and Dubinsky, Stanley 2006. The Place, Range, and Taxonomy of Control and Raising. Syntax, Vol. 9, Issue. 2, p. 111.

    Landau, Idan 2006. Severing the Distribution of PRO from Case. Syntax, Vol. 9, Issue. 2, p. 153.

    Polinsky, Maria and Potsdam, Eric 2006. Expanding the Scope of Control and Raising. Syntax, Vol. 9, Issue. 2, p. 171.

    Runner, Jeffrey T. 2006. Lingering Challenges to the Raising-to-object and Object-control Constructions. Syntax, Vol. 9, Issue. 2, p. 193.

    2006. References. Syntax, Vol. 9, Issue. 2, p. 214.


Control and semantic resource sensitivity

  • ASH ASUDEH (a1)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 15 November 2005

This paper examines tensions between the syntax of control and semantic resource sensitivity. Structure sharing of controller and control target leads to apparent RESOURCE DEFICIT under certain circumstances. An analysis is presented using Glue Semantics for Lexical Functional Grammar. It demonstrates that structure sharing and resource sensitivity can be reconciled without giving up or relaxing either notion. It is shown that the analysis can handle either property or propositional denotations for controlled complements. The analysis is extended to finite controlled complements, which raise the opposing problem of RESOURCE SURPLUS. A solution is proposed and its typological implications discussed. The syntax and semantics of control as structure sharing is compared to a recent anaphoric control analysis by Dalrymple (2001). Based on facts of exhaustive and partial control, the present analysis is argued to be superior.

Corresponding author
Linguistics Department, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand. E-mail:
Hide All
I would like to thank the following people for their assistance and for helpful discussions: Joan Bresnan, Daniel Büring, Gennaro Chierchia, Dick Crouch, Mary Dalrymple, Ron Kaplan, Tracy Holloway King, Paul Kiparsky, Hanjung Lee, John Maxwell, Jim McCloskey, Dave McKercher, Line Mikkelsen, Yukiko Morimoto, David Pesetsky, Chris Potts, Ivan Sag, Peter Sells, Ida Toivonen, Nigel Vincent, Draga Zec, and audiences at Stanford's Semantics Fest 1 and LFG 2000. Thanks also to the anonymous JL referees and to Bob Borsley and Ewa Jaworska at JL. I accept full responsibility for any errors. This work was supported in part by SSHRC Doctoral Fellowship 752-98-0424.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Linguistics
  • ISSN: 0022-2267
  • EISSN: 1469-7742
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-linguistics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *