Some Partial Considerations on Partial Control Instances in Romanian
Abstract
The paper looks at the possibility of Partial Control (henceforth, PC) instances in Romanian, a language which uses finite (subjunctive) complements in typical control contexts and where PC has therefore been deemed impossible. We show that PC effects can indeed be manifested in Romanian under a putea ‘can’, which we analyze as a neutral circumstantial modal in these contexts. We show, following Matsuda (2021), that these PC instances are sensitive to indexicality (viz., the current speech situation) and represent an interplay of (inclusion of) [+Speaker], [+Addressee] or both. We therefore identify three typical PC instances: a) 1st singular antecedent + 1st plural embedded reference (inclusion of current speaker); b) 2nd singular antecedent + 2nd plural embedded subject (inclusion of Addressee) and c) 2nd singular antecedent + 1st plural embedded subject (inclusion of both). This shows that in spite of the raising behaviour of most O(bligatory)C(ontrol)/E(xaustive) C(ontrol) verbs in Romanian (cf. Alboiu 2007, Cotfas 2012), there are contexts for which a control analysis needs to be maintained, and, more broadly, that PRO is to be maintained as an empty category and cannot be reduced to raising/movement.
Keywords:
Romanian, finite control, partial control, infinitive complement, subjunctive complement, indexicality, associative semanticsReferences
Alboiu, G. 2007. Moving forward with Romanian backward control and raising. In W. D. Davies and S. Dubinsky (eds.), New horizons in the analysis of control and raising, 187–211. Dordrecht: Springer.
Alexiadou, A., E. Anagnostopoulou, G. Iordachioaia, and M. Marchis. 2010. No objection to backward control. In N. Hornstein and M. Polinsky (eds.), Movement theory of control, 89–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.154.04ale.
Cotfas, M. A. 2012. On the syntax of the Romanian subjunctive. Ph.D. diss., University of Bucharest.
Jordan, M. 2009. Loss of infinitival complementation in Romanian diachronic syntax. Ph.D. diss., University of Florida.
Joseph, B. 1983. The synchrony and diachrony of the Balkan infinitive. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Landau, I. 2000. Elements of control: Structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Landau, I. 2004. The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22(4): 811–877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-4265-5.
Landau, I. 2013. Control in generative grammar: A research companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Landau, I. 2015. A two-tiered theory of control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Matsuda, A. 2015a. Controller restrictions and embedded force. JELS: Papers from the Conference and from the International Spring Forum of the English Linguistic Society of Japan 32: 77–83.
Matsuda, A. 2015b. Complement control without a DP controller. Journal of the Ochanomizu University English Society 5: 29–49.
Matsuda, A. 2017. Shifted indexicals in partial control. JELS: Papers from the Conference and from the International Spring Forum of the English Linguistic Society of Japan 34: 264–270.
Matsuda, A. 2021. Control from inside: Evidence from Japanese. In A. Mucha, J. M. Hartmann, and B. Trawinski (eds.), Non-canonical control in a cross-linguistic perspective, 137–167. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Palmer, F. R. 1990. Modality and English modals. London and New York: Longman.
Pearson, H. 2016. The semantics of partial control. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34(2): 691–738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9313-9.
Poole, E. 2015. Implicit arguments. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Portner, P. 2004. The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 14: 235–252.
Sevdali, C., and M. Sheehan. 2021. Rethinking partial control: New evidence from finite control clauses. In A. Bárány, T. Biberauer, J. Douglas, and S. Vikner (eds.), Syntactic architecture and its consequences III: Inside syntax, 323–340. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Vassilieva, M. 2005. Associative and pronominal plurality. Ph.D. diss., SUNY Stony Brook.
Wurmbrand, S. 2000. Modal verbs must be raising verbs. In S. Bird, A. Carnie, J. Haugen, and P. Norquest (eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 18, 599–612. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Zanuttini, R., P. Miok, and P. Portner. 2012. A syntactic analysis of interpretive restrictions on imperative, promissive, and exhortative subjects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30(4): 1231–1274.
University of Bucharest https://orcid.org/0009-0003-4381-3239
