5.4.3 Clausal modifiers

Although these clauses seem to lack a subject, it is immediately obvious that a subject is interpreted: in (180a) it is Bert who will be doing the impressing and in (180b) it is they who will collect the insurance. We call this phenomenon control. There is an element in the main clause who is interpreted as, or who ‘controls’ the missing subject of the modifying clause. There are restrictions, however, on which argument can act as the controller:

5.4.3 Clausal modifiers

In this case, only Fred can be interpreted as the one who was driving. It seems that the object is too far down inside the clause to act as controller. This is supported by the following observation:

5.4.3 Clausal modifiers

We can account for this in the following way. We know from chapter 3 that reflexive pronouns must refer to something within their own clause and in (182) the only thing that could be the referent of the reflexive is the missing subject. The missing subject is in turn controlled by some other element in the clause and hence limitations on the reference of the reflexive indicate limitations on the control of the subject. When the purpose clause modifies the higher verb, only the subject of this verb can act as the controller and hence be the ultimate referent of the reflexive. It seems that the subject of the other clause is ‘too low down’ in the clause to act as controller. On the other hand, this subject can act as controller when the purpose clause modifies the lower verb.

5.4.3 Clausal modifiers

184a) is ambiguous in terms of who is doing the firing: it could be Harry or Freda. (184b) is not ambiguous however as here only Harry can do the hiring. What can account for this difference? We have seen that the structural position of the purpose clause affects what can be the controller and so it might be that there are different possible positions for the purpose clause within the structure. The structure of the main VP in (184a) is as follows:

5.4.3 Clausal modifiers

As agent, Harry is the specifier of an agentive light verb and as theme Freda is the specifier of the main verb. The verb will move to support the light verb as usual. We know in this case, the purpose clause can either be controlled by the subject or the object and so it must be able to attach to the structure high enough to allow subject control and low enough to allow object control. Suppose we assume that the purpose clause can adjoin either to the v' or to the V':

5.4.3 Clausal modifiers

The two structures relate to the two possible meanings. When the purpose clause is adjoined to the v', as in (186a), then the agent can control the missing subject, and when it is adjoined to the V', as in (186b), then the theme can control the missing subject. For some reason, when fire is the head of the VP, the purpose clause can only be adjoined to the v' and hence only the agent can be the controller. Hence there will be no ambiguity. Note that the facts as such demonstrate that the purpose clauses must be able to attach within the VP so that objects can act as controllers. If this were never the case, we would only be able to get subject control.

8.2 Raising and Control

8.2.2 Control

8.2.2 Control

While there may be more or less ‘natural’ readings for these sentences, which are determined by pragmatic considerations, it is possible to think of contexts in which the pronouns could refer to either the subject or the object in each case: perhaps the tailor in (82a) is modelling a suit for the customer and wants to show the customer a certain effect that can best be seen by looking in the mirror, for example. However there are no contexts in which we could make the subject a possible antecedent for PRO in (81a) or the object in (81b) as the referential possibilities in this case are grammatically and not pragmatically determined. We call this property of PRO having to take its reference from one place or another control. Specifically, (81a) involves object control while (81b) involves subject control. It seems that what determines the control properties of PRO is the governing verbs: ask is an object control verb while promise is a subject control verb. Obviously when there is no object, subject control is the only possibility. When there is an object, overwhelmingly verbs tend to be object control and only a very small number of verbs behave like promise and have an object and yet control from the subject.

8.4 Conclusion

In this chapter we have dealt with a number of phenomena concerning non-finite clauses in English. On the whole, the interesting aspect of these constructions concerns their subjects. We have seen various possibilities for empty subjects in non-finite clauses, as with raising and control structures, and also exceptional accusative subjects in other constructions as with exceptional and small clauses. The gerund offers problems for analysis all of its own. By and large, we have offered analyses for all these structures, but have left many issues undiscussed and have ignored many alternative analyses. We might hope that this book has interested the reader sufficiently for them to follow up what has been left out here in further reading and research.