Skip to main content

Effects of discourse on control 1

  • VIKKI JANKE (a1) and LAURA R. BAILEY (a1)

This study examined discourse effects on obligatory and non-obligatory control interpretations. Seventy participants undertook three online forced-choice surveys, which monitored preferred interpretations in complement control, verbal gerund subject control, long-distance control and sentence-final temporal adjunct control. Survey 1 ascertained their baseline interpretations of the empty category in these constructions. Survey 2 primed the critical sentences used in survey 1 with a weakly established topic of discourse and survey 3 primed them with a strongly established one. Reference assignment in complement control remained consistent across all three conditions, illustrating that pragmatics does not infiltrate this structurally regulated and syntactically unambiguous construction. Changes in interpretation were found in the remaining three constructions. An accessibility-motivated scale of influence, combining three independent discourse factors (topichood, competition and linear distance) was created to model reference determination in verbal gerund subject control and long-distance control. The results for temporal adjunct control are novel. They revealed a much stronger susceptibility to pragmatic interference than that reported in the literature yet the construction behaved differently from non-obligatory control under discourse pressure. We propose a structural account for sentence-final temporal adjunct control, which permits the evident interpretation shift while still excluding arbitrary and sentence-external interpretations.

Corresponding author
Author’s address: Department of English Language and Linguistics, Rutherford College, School of European Culture and Languages, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NX, UK
Author’s address:
Hide All

We are particularly indebted to the 70 participants who were patient enough to fill in three questionnaires. For generous comments on a first draft, we thank Marco Tamburelli and are also grateful for subsequent comments from or conversations with Annabel Cormack, Cécile De Cat, Anders Holmberg, Ad Neeleman, Michelle Sheehan and Neil Smith. We also profited from Christina Kim’s and Tamara Rathcke’s stats advice. Finally, we gratefully acknowledge the constructive and detailed comments from three anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees.

Hide All
Adler Alison. 2006 Syntax and discourse in the acquisition of adjunct control. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Ariel Mira. 1988. Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics 24, 6587.
Ariel Mira. 2001. Accessibility theory: An overview. In Sanders Ted, Schliperoord Joost & Spooren Wilbert (eds.), Text representation (Human Cognitive Processing Series), 2987. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ariel Mira. 2004. Accessibility marking: Discourse functions, discourse profiles and processing cues. Discourse Processes 37, 91116.
Bader Markus & Häussler Jana. 2010. Toward a model of grammaticality judgements. Journal of Linguistics 46, 273330.
Bailey Laura R. 2011. Null subjects in spoken North-East English. Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics 17, 2345.
Bhatt Rajesh & Izvorski Roumyana. 1998. Genericity, implicit arguments and control. Presented at SCIL (Student Conference in Linguistics) VII. Available at (accessed 19 August 2016).
Bhatt Rajesh & Pancheva Roumyana. 2006. Implicit arguments. In Everaert Martin & van Riemsdijk Henk (eds.), Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. II, 554584. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bresnan Joan. 1982. Control and complementation. Linguistic Inquiry 13, 343434.
Buchstaller Isabelle & Corrigan Karen. 2011. How to make intuitions succeed: Testing methods for analyzing syntactic microvariation. In Maguire Warren & McMahon April (eds.), Analysing variation in English, 3048. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen Sherman Janet & Lust Barbara. 1993. Children are in control. Cognition 43, 151.
D’Elia Samuel. 2016. The spray-load and dative alternation: Aligning VP structure and contextual effects. Ph.D. thesis, University of Kent.
Duffley Patrick. 2014. Reclaiming control as a semantic and pragmatic phenomenon. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Erteschik-Shir Nomi. 1993. The dynamics of focus structure. Ms., Ben Gurion University of the Negev.
Gibson Edward. 2000. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Miyashita Yasushi, Marantz Alec & O’Neil Wayne (eds.), Image, language, brain, 95126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Givón T.(ed.). 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study (Typological Studies in Language 3). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goodluck Helen. 1981. Children’s grammar of complement–subject interpretation. In Tavakolian Susan L. (ed.), Language acquisition and linguistic theory, 139166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Guasti Maria. 2004. Language acquisition: The growth of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hornstein Norbert. 2001. Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford: Blackwell.
Huettner Alison K.1989. Adjunct infinitives in English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
Janke Vikki. 2007. Control without PRO. Ph.D. thesis, University College London.
Janke Vikki. 2008. Control without a subject. Lingua 118, 82118.
Janke Vikki. 2013. The distribution of non-obligatory control and its + human interpretation. In Kolokonte Marina & Janke Vikki (eds.), Interfaces in language 3, 121157. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Janke Vikki. Forthcoming. Pragmatic leads and null subjects: When children consult leads and when they do not. In Jennifer Scott & Deborah Waughtal (eds.), BUCLD 40: Proceedings of the 40th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Janke Vikki & Neeleman Ad. 2012. Ascending and descending VPs in English. Linguistic Inquiry 43, 151190.
Lambrecht Knud. 1996. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus and the mental representations of discourse referents (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 71). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Landau Idan. 2000. Elements of control: Structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Landau Idan. 2013. Control in generative grammar: A research companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Larson Richard K. 1991. Promise and the theory of control. Linguistic Inquiry 22.1, 103139.
Larson Richard K. 2004. Sentence-final adverbs and ‘scope’. In Wolf Matthew & Moulton Keir (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth North-Eastern Linguistic Society (NELS 34), 2343. University of Massachusetts, Amherst: GLSA.
Lewis Richard & Vasishth Shravan. 2005. An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science 29, 375419.
Lust Barbara, Solan Larry, Flynn Suzanne, Cross Catherine & Schuetz Elaine. 1986. A comparison of null and pronoun anaphora in first language acquisition. In Lust (ed.), 245277.
Lust Barbara(ed.). 1986. Studies in the acquisition of anaphora, vol. 1: Defining the constraints. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Manzini Rita. 1983. On control and control theory. Linguistic Inquiry 14, 421446.
Manzini Rita & Roussou Anna. 2000. A minimalist theory of A-movement and control. Lingua 110, 409447.
Martin Roger. 1996. A minimalist theory of PRO and control. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Neeleman Ad, Titov Elena, van de Koot Hans & Vermeulen Reiko. 2009. A syntactic typology of topic, focus and contrast. In van Craenenbroeck Jeroen (ed.), Alternatives to cartography (Studies in Generative Grammar), 1552. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Petter Marga. 1998. Getting PRO under control (LOT International Series 8). The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
Reinhart Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27, 5394.
Samek-Lodovici Vieri. 1996. Constraints on subjects: An optimality theoretic analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University.
Strawson Peter F. 1964. Identifying reference and truth values. Theoria 30, 96118.
Vallduví Enric. 1992. The informational component. New York & London: Garland.
Williams Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11, 203238.
Williams Edwin. 1994. Thematic structure in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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? *



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 17
Total number of PDF views: 212 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 774 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 21st September 2016 - 25th February 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.