Control (linguistics)

src: i.ytimg.com

In linguistics, control is a construction in which the subject understood from a particular predicate is determined by some expression in context. An example of stereotypical control involves a verb. The superordinate verb "controls" the subordinate, nonfinite verb argument. Controls were studied intensively within the Government and the binding framework of the 1980s, and much of the terminology of the era is still in use today. In the days of Transformational Grammar, the phenomenon of control is discussed in terms of removal of Equi-NP . Controls are often analyzed in the form of a zero pronoun called PRO . Controls are also associated with improvement, although there is an important difference between control and improvement. Most if not all languages ​​have construction controls and these constructions tend to occur frequently.

Video Control (linguistics)

Example

An example of a (mandatory) control standard exists in the following sentence:

Susan promised us to help. - Subject control with predefined control predicate appointments

Fred stopped laughing. - Controls subject with mandatory control predicate stop

We are trying to sign out. - Control the subject with the mandatory control predicate try

Sue asked Bill to stop. - Control objects with mandatory control predicates ask

They told you to support the effort. - Control objects with mandatory control predicates notify

Someone forced him do . - Control objects with mandatory control predicates force

Each of these sentences contains two oral predicates. Each time a control verb is on the left, and a verb whose controlled argument is on the right. The verb control determines the expression interpreted as the subject of the verb on the right. The first three sentences are examples of subject control, because the subject of the control verb is also the understood subject of a subordinate verb. The three second examples are examples of object control, since the objects of the control verb are understood as the subject of a subordinate verb. The matrix predicate argument that serves as the subject of the embedded predicate is the controller . The controller is bolded in the example.

Maps Control (linguistics)

verb control vs. auxiliary verbs

The verb control has semantic content; they semantically chose their argument, that is, their appearance greatly affected the nature of the argument they took. In this case, they are very different from the auxiliary verbs, which have no semantic content and are not semantically selecting arguments. Compare the following pairs of sentences:

a. Sam is leaving. - will is an additional verb.

b. Sam wants to leave. - missed is the subject control verb.

a. Jim has to do it. - should be the working capital.

b. Jim declined to do so. - disavow is the subject control verb.

a. Jill will lie and cheat. - will be the auxiliary capital.

b. Jill tried to lie and cheat. - try is the subject control verb.

A-sentence contains auxiliary verbs that do not select subject arguments. What this means is the embedded verb go , do , and lie and cheat is responsible for the semantics of choosing the subject argument. The point is that although control verbs may have the same outward appearance as auxiliary verbs, the two verbs are very different.

src: i.ytimg.com

Non-compulsory or optional controls

Control verbs (like appointments , stop , try , ask , give know , force , miss , refuse , attempt ) is required to induce control constructs. That is, when control verbs appear, they inherently determine which argument controls the embedded predicate. Control therefore must be present with this verb. In contrast, many verb arguments can be controlled even when higher control verbs do not exist, eg.

He leaves, singing along the way. - Non-compulsory control of participle present singing

Understand anything, class protest. - Unnecessary control of participle present understanding

While holding your breath for too long, Fred fainted. - Unnecessary control of participle present holding

On the one hand, control is mandatory in these sentences because the arguments of present participle singing , understanding and holding are clearly controlled by the matrix. subject. However, in other words, the control is not mandatory (or optional) because no predicate controls are present which necessitate the control to occur. The general contextual factor determines the expression conceived as a controller. The controller is the subject in these sentences because the subject sets the point of view.

src: images.slideplayer.com

Arbitrary control

Arbitrary controls occur when the controller is understood as anybody in general, e.g.

Reading the Dead Sea Scrolls is fun. - Arbitrary control from gerund read .

Seeing is believing. - Arbitrary control of gerunds view and believe

Must do something repeatedly boring. - Arbitrary control of gerund has

Subjects understood by gerunds in this sentence are not discriminatory; every generic person will do it. In such cases, the controls are said to be "arbitrary". Whenever a subject understood from a given predicate is not present in a linguistic or situational context, a generic subject (eg 'one') is understood.

src: images.slideplayer.com

Represents control

Theoretical linguistics presupposes the existence of the pronoun zero PRO as the theoretical foundation for the analysis of control structures. The pronoun zero PRO is the element that affects a sentence in the same way as the normal pronoun affects a sentence, but the zero pronoun is not heard. PRO null is added to the predicate, where it occupies a position normally associated with an open subject (if any). The following trees illustrate the PRO in both structure-based grammatical constituent phrases of dependency structure and grammatical dependencies:

The constituent-based trees are the a-tree on the left, and the trees that depend on the tree b on the right. Of course aspects of these trees - especially constituent trees - are debatable. In the current context, trees are intended only to suggest by way of illustration of how control and PRO are understood. Indexes are a common means for identifying PRO and with its antecedents in the control predicate, and orange arrows indicate further control relationships. In a sense, the controller gives its index to PRO, which identifies arguments that are understood to be the subject of a subordinate predicate.

X-bar (constituent-based) theoretical tree consistent with standard GB type analysis is given next:

Details of this tree, again, are not so important. What is important is that by proposing the existence of a PRO zero subject, the theoretical analysis of the control constructs acquires useful tools that can help uncover important features of the control constructs.

src: www.greatvaluecolleges.net

Controls vs. up

Controls should be distinguished from raising, although both can be the same. The predicate control selects the semantics of their argument, as stated above. Raising predicates, on the contrary, does not semantically select (at least) one of their dependents. This contrast is evidenced by so-called "raise-to-object" verbs like trust , expect , want , and prove . Compare the following a- and b-sentences:

a. Fred asked you you to read it. - query is an object control verb.

b. Fred expects you to read it. - expect is an object-raising verb.

a. Jim forced him to say it. - forced is an object control verb.

b. Jim believes he has said that. - believe is a noun-raising verb.

The predicate control ask and force semantically selects the object argument, while the no-up-to-object verb. Instead, the object of the verb raising appears to have "risen" from the predicate of the embedded subject position, in this case from the embedded predicate to read and has said . In other words, the embedded semantic predicate selects the argument from the matrix predicate. What this means is that while the verb-raising object to object depends on the object, the dependent is not the semantic argument of the verb that improves. The difference becomes clear when one assumes that a control predicate like ask needs its object to be an animate entity, whereas an ascending predicate like expects there is no semantic restriction on its dependent object.

Diagnostic Test

Expletives

Different types of predicates can be identified using the drag there . Ekspletif exist can appear as "objects" of the predominating-to-object predicate, but not from the control verb, for example

a. * Fred asks there to be a party. - Expletive there can not appear as a predicate control object.

b. Fred expects there to be a party. - Expletive there can appear as a object of up-to-object predicate.

a. * Jim forces there to be a party. - Expletive there can not appear as a predicate control object.

b. Jim believes there to be a party. - Expletive there can appear as a object of up-to-object predicate.

The control predicate can not take the absorbed oath there because exists does not meet the semantic requirements of the control predicate. Since the up-to-object predicates do not select their objects, they can easily take the absorbing oath there .

Idioms

Control and rearing are also different in the way they behave with idiomatic expressions. An idiomatic expression maintains its meaning in constructing the construction, but they lose it when they argue from the control verb. See the example below which shows the idiom "The cat is out of the bag", which means that previously hidden facts are now revealed.

a. Cats want to get out of the bag. - There is no possibility of idiomatic interpretation in the control constructs.

b. The cat seemed to come out of the bag. - An idiomatic interpretation is maintained in the hoisting construction.

The explanation for this fact is that increasing predicates do not semantically choose their arguments, and therefore their arguments are not interpreted comparatively, as the subject or object of the predicate raises. The predicate arguments of control, on the other hand, must meet their semantic requirements, and are interpreted as compositional predicate arguments.

This test works for object control and ECM as well.

a. I asked the cat to get out of the bag. - There is no possibility of idiomatic interpretation in the control constructs.

b. I believe the cat is out of the bag. - An idiomatic interpretation is maintained in the hoisting construction.

src: bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com

Note

src: s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com

See also

• Grammar dependency
• Grammar phrase structure
• Predicate
• Arguments
• Cultivation
• Catenative verb

References

• Bach, E. 1974. Syntactic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.
• Borsley, R. 1996. Modern phrase structure grammar. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publisher.
• Carnie, A. 2007. Syntax: Introduction to generative, 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
• Cowper, E. 2009. Brief introduction to syntactical theory: The binding approach of government. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Culicover, P. 1982. Syntax, 2nd ed. New York: Academic Press.
• Culicover, P. 1997. Principles and Parameters: Introduction to syntactic theory. Oxford University Press.
• Davies, William D., and Stanley Dubinsky. 2008. Grammar improves and controls: A course in syntactical argumentation. John Wiley & amp; Boys.
• Emonds, J. 1976. Transformational approach to English syntax: Root, structure-preserving, and local transformation. New York: Academic Press.
• Grinder, J. and S. Elgin. 1973. Guidelines for transformational grammar: History, theory, and practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.
• Haegeman, L. 1994. Introduction to government and binding theory, 2nd ed. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
• Lasnik, H. and M. Saito. 1999. On infinitive issues. In H. Lasnik, Minimalist analysis, 7-24. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• McCawley, T. 1988. The syntactic phenomenon of English, Vol. 1. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Osborne, T. and T. GroÃÆ'Ÿ 2012. Construction is catenae: Grammar Construction meets Grammatical Dependency. Cognitive Linguistics 23, 1, 163-214.
• van Riemsdijk, H. and E. Williams. 1986. Introduction to grammar theory. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
• Rosenbaum, Peter. 1967. Grammar of complementary construction of English predicate . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

External links

• List of English control verbs in Wiktionary

Source of the article : Wikipedia