Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T19:34:00.766Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The semantic basis of control in english

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Ray Jackendoff  and
Peter W. Culicover
Ray Jackendoff*
Affiliation:
Brandeis University
Peter W. Culicover*
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
*
Jackendoff, Volen Center for Complex Systems, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02454 [jackendoff@brandeis.edu]
Culicover, Department of Linguistics, and Center for Cognitive Science, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210 [culicover.1@osu.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Our intent here, in the face of a persistent tradition of studying control in purely syntactic terms, is to reiterate the fundamental importance of semantics in the control problem, and to articulate some of the semantic factors more precisely than has heretofore been possible. After presenting familiar obstacles to a theory of control based on syntactic binding, we make a three-way distinction between ‘unique control’ (usually called obligatory control), ‘free control’, and ‘nearly free control’ (the last two falling under traditional nonobligatory control). We show that in a very large class of cases of unique control, the controlled vp denotes an action and the controller is the character who has the onus for that action. This analysis is applied to four major classes of control verbs and their nominals, as well as a class of adjectives, showing that semantic role reliably identifies the controller, and syntactic position does not. Through a formalization in terms of conceptual structure, we begin to be able to explain much of control directly from the lexical decomposition of the matrix verb. Several classes of exceptions to the conditions on unique control are treated as cases of coercion, in which extra conventionalized semantic material is added that is not present in syntax.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 79 , Issue 3 , September 2003 , pp. 517 - 556
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 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. Linguistic Inquiry 10. 515–31.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L. 1995. English syntax. 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bowers, John S. 1981. The theory of grammatical relations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Bratman, Michael. 1987. Intention, plans, and practical reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Control and complementation. The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. by Bresnan, Joan, 282–390. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Briscoe, E., Copestake, A.; and Boguraev, B. 1990. Enjoy the paper: Lexical semantics via lexicology. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 42–47. Helsinki.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantrall, William R. 1974. Viewpoint, reflexives, and the nature of noun phrases. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1988. Structured meanings, thematic roles, and control. Properties, types, and meaning, vol. 2, ed. by Chierchia, Gennaro, Partee, Barbara, and Turner, Ray, 131–66. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Carol. 1969. The acquisition of syntax in children from 5 to 10. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W., and Jackendoff, Ray. 1995. Something else for the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 26. 195–217.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W., and Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. Semantic subordination despite syntactic coordination. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 195–217.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W., and Jackendoff, Ray. 2001. Control is not movement. Linguistic Inquiry 32. 493–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W., and Wilkins, Wendy. 1986. Control, PRO, and the projection principle. Language 62. 120–53.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1985. On recent analyses of the semantics of control. Linguistics and Philosophy 8. 291–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 1988. On obligatory control. Linguistics and Philosophy 11. 27–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles, Kay, Paul; and O'Connor, Mary Catherine. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64. 501–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Susan D., and Marshall, Byron. 1969. The examination and abandonment of the theory of begin of D. M. Perlmutter as carried out by two of the inmates of room Twenty-E-Two-Fifteen, under the direction of Divine Providence. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane B. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grinder, John. 1970. Super equi-NP deletion. Chicago Linguistic Society 6. 297–317.Google Scholar
Higgins, Roger. 1973. The pseudo cleft construction in English. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30. 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hust, Joel, and Brame, Michael. 1976. Jackendoff on interpretive semantics (review of Jackendoff 1972). Linguistic Analysis 2. 243–77.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1969. Some rules of semantic interpretation for English. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1974. A deep structure projection rule. Linguistic Inquiry 5. 481–506.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1985. Believing and intending: Two sides of the same coin. Linguistic Inquiry 16. 445–60.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1992. Mme. Tussaud meets the binding theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10. 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1995. The conceptual structure of intending and volitional action. Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory: Studies in honor of Carlos P. Otero, ed. by Campos, Hector and Kempchinsky, Paula, 198–227. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1999. The natural logic of rights and obligations. Language, logic, and concepts: Essays in memory of John Macnamara, ed. by Jackendoff, Ray, Bloom, Paul, and Wynn, Karen, 67–95. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Ewan, and Sag, Ivan. 1985. Type-driven translation. Linguistics and Philosophy 8. 163–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladusaw, William, and Dowty, David. 1988. Toward a nongrammatical account of thematic roles. Syntax and semantics 21: Thematic relations, ed. by Wilkins, Wendy, 62–74. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1971. Irregularity in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of control: Structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1991. Promise and the theory of control. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 103–39.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard, Iatridou, Sabine, Lahiri, Utpal; and Higginbotham, James (eds.) 1992. Control and grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard, and Fiengo, Robert. 1974. Complement object deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 5. 535–71.Google Scholar
Lawler, John. 1972. A problem in participatory democracy. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1999. Two structures for compositionally derived events. SALT 9. 199–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, Rita Maria. 1983. On control and control theory. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 421–46.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick. 1986. Linguistic theory in America. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1984. Control and the thematic domain. Language 60. 215–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1971. Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1970. On coreferential complement subject deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 1. 439–500.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1970. On declarative sentences. Readings in transformational grammar, ed. by Jacobs, Roderick and Rosenbaum, Peter, 222–72. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Růžička, Rudolf. 1983. Remarks on control. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 309–24.Google Scholar
Růžička, Rudolf. 1999. Control in grammar and pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan, and Pollard, Carl. 1991. An integrated theory of complement control. Language 67. 63–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John. 1983. Intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John. 1995. The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Steele, Susan. 1981. An encyclopedia of AUX: A study in cross-linguistic equivalence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Takagi, Hiroyuki. 2001. On so-called ‘obligatory control’: A cognitive account. English Linguistics 18. 57–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Force-dynamics in language and thought. Chicago Linguistic Society 21. 293–337. Revised version in Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. 1, ed. by Talmy, Leonard, 409–70. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
van Valin, Robert D. Jr., and LaPolla, Randy J. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 203–38.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1985. PRO and subject of NP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3. 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1992. Adjunct control. In Larson, et al., 297–322.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susanne. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar