Hostname: page-component-75d7c8f48-665pl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-13T18:08:43.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Integrated Theory of Complement Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Ivan A. Sag  and
Carl Pollard
Ivan A. Sag*
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Carl Pollard*
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
*
Ivan A. Sag, Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305‐2150
Carl Pollard, Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210‐1229
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents an integrated theory of the syntax and semantics of complement control that treats unexpressed subjects in verbal and nominal constructions uniformly, in terms of semantic control constraints that are shown to apply across discourse as well. Our account includes an explanation of the long-standing problem of be allowed to … exceptions to Visser's Generalization (that subject-control verbs do not passivize). Moreover, semantic control constraints are shown to interact with a principle governing the binding of overt and covert anaphors in such a way as to deduce the correct predictions of both Visser's Generalization and Manzini's Generalization (that VP complements are controlled by an argument of the governing verb).

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 67 , Issue 1 , March 1991 , pp. 63 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

This research was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation (BNS-85–11687, BNS-87–18156 and IRI-8806913) and by a gift to Stanford University from the System Development Foundation. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1985 LSA Meeting in Seattle. We would particularly like to thank Georgia Green for numerous suggestions, clarifications, and corrections of an earlier version of the paper. In addition, we thank Gennaro Chierchia, David Dowty, Janet Fodor, Mark Gawron, Jonathan Ginzburg. John Goldsmith, Aaron Halpern, Yasunari Harada, Kathryn Henniss, Erhard Hinrichs, Ray Jackendoff, Polly Jacobson, Paul Kroeger, Jim McCawley, K.P. Mohanan, Tsuneko Nakazawa, Dick Oehrle, Barbara Partee, Stanley Peters, Jerrold Sadock, Peter Sells, Tom Wasow, Draga Zec, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful discussions and criticism. Sag would also like to thank the Departments of Linguistics and Computer Science at the University of Chicago for their support during 1987–1988.

References

Anderson, Stephen. 1977. Comments on the paper by Wasow. Formal syntax, ed. by Culicover, Peter, Wasow, Thomas, and Akmajian, Adrian, 361–78. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1979. Control in Montague grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 10.515–31.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1980. In defense of passive. Linguistics and Philosophy 3.297–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, C. Leroy. 1968. Indirect questions in English. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois dissertation.Google Scholar
Barwise, Jon, and Perry, John. 1983. Situations and attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Control and complementation. Linguistic Inquiry 13.343–434. [Reprinted in The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. by Joan Bresnan. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1982.]Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Kanerva, Jonni. 1989. Locative inversion in Chichewa: a case study of factorization in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 20.1–50.Google Scholar
Claudia, Brugmann. 1981. Story of ‘over’. Berkeley: University of California M.A. thesis. [Published by Garland Publishers, 1989.]Google Scholar
Castañeda, Hector-Neri. 1975. Thinking and doing. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1983. Outline of a semantic theory of (obligatory) control. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 2.19–31. Stanford, CA: Stanford Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1984. Topics in the syntax and semantics of infinitives and gerunds. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1987. Aspects of a categorial theory of binding. Categorial grammars and natural language structures, ed. by Oehrle, Richard, Bach, Emmon, and Wheeler, Deirdre, 125–51. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1989. Structured meanings, thematic roles and control. In Chierchia et al., 131–66.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro, and Jacobson, Pauline. 1986. Local and long distance control. North Eastern Linguistic Society 16.57–74.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro; Partee, Barbara; and Turner, Raymond (eds.) 1989. Properties, types and meaning II. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1980. On binding. Linguistic Inquiry 11.1–46.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Clements, Clancy, and Wettengel, Gerard. 1989. Verb-dependent control phenomena with infinitive clauses. Bloomington: Indiana University, ms.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1984. Subject and object control: Syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Berkeley Linguistics Society 10.450–64. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Cutrer, L. Michelle. 1987. Theories of obligatory control. Davis Working Papers in Linguistics no. 2, ed. by Valin, Robert Van, 6–37. Davis, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
Dell, François. 1981. On certain sentential complements in Tagalog. Philippine Journal of Linguistics 12.11–28.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1982a. Grammatical relations and Montague grammar. The nature of syntactic representation, ed. by Jacobson, Pauline and Pullum, Geoffrey K., 79–130. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David. 1982b. More on the categorial analysis of grammatical relations. Subjects and other subjects, ed. by Zaenen, Annie, 115–53. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1985. On recent analyses of the semantics of control. Linguistics and Philosophy 8.1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David. 1989. On the semantic content of the notion ‘thematic role’. In Chierchia et al., 69–130.Google Scholar
Dowty, David, and Jacobson, Pauline. 1989. Agreement as a semantic phenomenon. Proceedings of the Fifth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL '88), ed. by Powers, Joyce and Jong, K. de, 95–108. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 1984. Subjunctive complements in Romanian. Papers from the XIIth Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, ed. by Baldi, Philip, 355–72. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 1985. Obligatorily controlled subjects in Romanian. Chicago Linguistic Society 21.90–100.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 1988. On obligatory control. Linguistics and Philosophy 11.27–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1967. The case for case. Universals in linguistic theory, ed. by Bach, Emmon and Harms, Robert, 1–90. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Fodor, Janet Dean. 1974. Like subject verbs and causal clauses in English. Journal of Linguistics 10.95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. 1975. The language of thought. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
Foley, William, and Valin, Robert Van. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gawron, Jean Mark, and Peters, Stanley. 1990. Anaphora and quantification in situation semantics. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information and Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoffrey K.; and Sag, Ivan A. 1985. Generalized phrase structure grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1977. English wh-constructions and the theory of grammar. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1979. Complement selection and the lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry 10.279–326.Google Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey. 1965. Studies in lexical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. [Published in revised form as Lexical structures in syntax and semantics. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1976.]Google Scholar
Hashemipour, Margaret. 1988. Finite control in modern Persian. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 7.115–28.Google Scholar
Helke, Michael. 1971. The grammar of English reflexives. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Herskovitz, Annette. 1986. Language and spatial cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Higgins, F. Roger. 1973. The pseudo-cleft construction in English. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack. 1983. Plurality and conjunction. Studies in model-theoretic semantics, ed. by Meulen, Alice ter, 63–84. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hust, Joel, and Brame, Michael. 1976. Jackendoff on interpretive semantics. Linguistic Analysis 2.243–77.Google Scholar
Iida, Masayo. 1991. Context and binding in Japanese. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation, in progress.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1974. A deep structure projection rule. Linguistic Inquiry 5.481–506.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1987. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18.369–411.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1987. Morphology and grammatical relations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, ms.Google Scholar
Kroeger, Paul. 1990. Subjecthood and control in Tagalog. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, ms.Google Scholar
Kroeger, Paul. 1991. Nonsubject controllees in Tagalog. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Chicago.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1970. Some properties of non-referential noun phrases. Studies in general and Oriental linguistics, ed. by Jakobson, Roman and Kawamoto, S., 348–73. Tokyo: TEC.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1976. Subject raising. Syntax and semantics, vol. 5: Japanese generative grammar, ed. by Shibatani, Masayoshi, 17–49. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1987. Functional syntax. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William, and Dowty, David. 1988. Towards a non-semantic account of thematic roles. Syntax and Semantics, vol. 21: On the nature of thematic roles, ed. by Wilkins, Wendy, 61–73. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1965. Irregularity in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapointe, Steven. 1980. A theory of grammatical agreement. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1988. Promise and the theory of control. (Lexicon Project Working Papers 23.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard, and Fiengo, Robert. 1974. Complement object deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 5.535–71.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David. 1984. Locality and anaphoric binding. The Linguistic Review 4.343–63.Google Scholar
Lindner, Susan. 1981. A lexico-semantic analysis of verb-particle constructions with up and out. La Jolla, CA: University of California at San Diego dissertation.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita. 1983. On control and control theory. Linguistic Inquiry 14.421–46.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. 1983. Functional and anaphoric control. Linguistic Inquiry 14.641–74.Google Scholar
Morgan, Jerry. 1969. On arguing about semantics. Papers in Linguistics 1.49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara. 1987. Noun phrase interpretation and polymorphic types. Groningen-Amsterdam studies in semantics, vol. 8: Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers, ed. by Groenendijk, Jeroen, Jongh, Dick de, and Stokhof, Martin, 115–43. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 1968. Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. [Published in revised form as Perlmutter 1971.]Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 1971. Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl. 1984. Generalized context-free grammars, head grammars and natural language. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan A. 1987. Information-based syntax and semantics, vol. 1: Fundamentals. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information and Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan A. 1988. An information-based theory of agreement. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan A. 1991a. Anaphors in English and the scope of binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry, to appear.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan A. 1991b. Information-based syntax and semantics, vol. 2: Agreement, binding and control. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information and Chicago: University of Chicago Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 1981. Transformational grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter S. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Růžička, Rudolf. 1983. Remarks on control. Linguistic Inquiry 14.309–24.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 1987. Grammatical hierarchy and linear precedence. Syntax and semantics, vol. 20: Discontinuous constituency, ed. by Huck, Geoffrey and Ojeda, Almerindo, 303–40. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ojeda, Almerindo, and Pollard, Carl. 1989. Subcategorization and head-driven phrase structure. Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, ed. by Baltin, Mark and Kroch, Anthony, 139–81. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1976. The subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above. Subject and Topic, ed. by Li, Charles N., 491–518. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1977. Reference-related and role-related properties of subjects. Syntax and semantics, vol. 8: Grammatical relations, ed. by Cole, Peter and Sadock, Jerrold, 279–306. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmerling, Susan. 1979. Synonymy judgments as syntactic evidence. Syntax and semantics, vol. 9: Pragmatics, ed. by Cole, Peter, 299–314. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Shieber, Stuart. 1986. An introduction to unification-based theories of grammar. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information and Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Steele, Susan, et al. 1981. An encyclopedia of aux. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Suñer, Margarita. 1984. Controlled pro. Papers from the XIIth Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, ed. by Baldi, Philip, 253–73. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Thomason, Richmond. 1974. Some complement constructions in Montague grammar. Chicago Linguistic Society 10.712–22.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas, Sag, Ivan A.; and Nunberg, Geoffrey. 1983. Idioms: An interim report. Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Linguists, ed. by Shirô, Hattori and Inoue, Kazuko, 102–15. Tokyo: Nippon Toshi Center.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin S. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11.203–38.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin S. 1985. Pro and subject of NP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3.297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter. 1988. Einige Bemerkungen über Kongruenz. University of Düsseldorf, ms.Google Scholar
Zec, Draga. 1987. On obligatory control in clausal complements. Working papers in grammatical theory and discourse structure: Interactions of morphology, syntax and discourse, ed. by Iida, Masayo, Wechsler, Stephen, and Zec, Draga, 139–68. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information and Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 1989. Anaphor binding and narrative point of view: English reflexive pronouns in sentence and discourse. Lg. 65.695–727.Google Scholar