Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T07:48:21.653Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Control and The Thematic Domain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Taisuke Nishigauchi
Taisuke Nishigauchi*
Affiliation:
Shoin College, Kobe
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper argues that control relations are primarily characterized in terms of thematic relations. The notion Primary Location, defined on the basis of thematic structures, is shown to be crucially necessary for thematically determined cases of control. It is also shown that thematically determined control has a set of properties which are not possessed by cases of control which cannot be determined thematically, and that most of them are derived from the properties of thematic relations. Further, a locality principle of control is proposed here, based on the notion Thematic Domain; and it is shown that thematic control requires the presence of a Primary Location within this local domain.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 60 , Issue 2 , June 1984 , pp. 215 - 250
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 by the 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

References

Bach, Emmon. 1979. Control in Montague Grammar. LI 10. 515–31.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1982. Purpose clauses and control. In Jacobson & Pullum, 35–57.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon, and Partee, Barbara H. 1980. Anaphora and semantic structure. Papers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora, 1–28. Chicago: CLS.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Control and complementation. LI 13. 343–435.Google Scholar
Chao, Wynn. 1981. PRO-drop languages and non-obligatory control. Occasional Papers in Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, 7. 46–74.Google Scholar
(a) Johni arrived deadi.Google Scholar
(b) *Johnis arrival deadiGoogle Scholar
However, some speakers accept (b). Further, the claim that predication relations do not hold within NP seems to be factually wrong—since, with so-called ‘picture nouns’, predication relations in the following examples are acceptable:Google Scholar
(c) a story about Johni [fighting for freedom]iGoogle Scholar
(d) a picture of Maryi nudeiGoogle Scholar
Examples like (c)-(d) indicate that ‘picture nouns’ are capable of assigning thematic relations.Google Scholar
Chao, Wynn. 1982. The interpretation of null elements in Brazilian Portuguese. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wH-movement. Formal syntax, ed. by Culicover, Peter et al., 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1980. On binding. LI 11. 1–46.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. (LI monograph 6.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cooper, Robin. 1979. The interpretation of pronouns. Selections from the 3rd Groningen Round Table, ed. by Heny, Frank & Schnelle, Helmut (Syntax and semantics, 10), 61–92. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Faraci, Robert. 1974. Aspects of the grammar of infinitives and for-phrases. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Finer, Daniel, and Roeper, Thomas. 1982. The projection principle and the lexicon. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, MS.Google Scholar
Freidin, Robert. 1978. Cyclicity and the theory of grammar. LI 9. 519–50.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald. 1982. Phrase structure grammar. In Jacobson & Pullum, 131–86.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1975. A note on the interpretation of subjects of infinitival relatives. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, MS.Google Scholar
Grinder, John T. 1971. Super-equi-NP deletion. CLS 6. 297–317.Google Scholar
Gruber, Geoffrey. 1965. Studies in lexical relations. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 1980. Pronouns and bound variables. LI 11. 679–709.Google Scholar
Higgins, F. Roger. 1973. The pseudo-cleft construction in English. MIT dissertation. [Published, New York: Garland, 1979.]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. LI 5. 481–506.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1976. Toward an explanatory semantic representation. LI 7. 89–150.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline, and Pullum, Geoffrey. 1982 (eds.) The nature of syntactic representation. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The philosophy of grammar. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Kageyama, Taro. 1980. The role of thematic relations in the spray paint hypallage. Papers in Japanese linguistics. 7. 35–64. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans. 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. Formal methods in the study of language, ed. by Groenendijk, J. A. G. et al., 277–322. Amsterdam: Mathematical Center.Google Scholar
Koster, Jan. 1981. On binding and control. [To appear in LI.]Google Scholar
Koster, Jan, and May, Robert. 1982. On the constituency of infinitives. Lg. 58.116–43.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu, and Kaburaki, Etsuko. 1977. Empathy and syntax. LI 8. 627–72.Google Scholar
Linden, E. 1974. Apes, men, and language. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Manzini, Maria Rita. 1982. On control and control theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT, MS.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1972. Opacity, coreference, and pronouns. Semantics of natural language, ed. by Davidson, Donald & Harman, Gilbert, 415–41. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1975. Deletion and variable-binding. Formal semantics of natural language, ed. by Keenan, Edward L., 16–34. Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1978. Bound variables and other anaphors. Theoretical issues in natural language processing 2, ed. by Waltz, D. L., 79–85. Urbana: Association for Computational Linguistics, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Waltz, D. L., and Bach, Emmon. 1981. Quantification, pronouns, and VP anaphora. Formal methods in the study of language, ed. by Groenendijk, J. A. G. et al., 445–81. Amsterdam: Mathematical Center.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1976. The syntactic domain of anaphora. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Paper read at colloquium, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 1976. Deletion and logical form. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Solan, Lawrence. 1978. On the interpretation of missing complement NP's. Occasional Papers in Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, 3. 35–56.Google Scholar
Stowell, Timothy. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Stowell, Timothy. MS. Subject across categories. [To appear in Linguistic Review 2:3.]Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1974. Rule ordering in syntax. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1977. Discourse and logical form. LI 8. 101–40.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. LI 11. 203–38.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1982. The NP cycle. LI 13. 277–95.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1983. Against small clauses. LI 14. 287–308.Google Scholar