DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS AND AFRICAN LANGUAGES,

FACULTY OF ARTS,

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN,

IBADAN, NIGERIA.

COURSE TITLE: ADVANCED SYNTAX

COURSE CODE: LIN 721

GROUP MEMBERS: ỌLÁDẸ̀ JỌ Zainab Abíọ́ dún

OYÈWỌLÉ Joseph Adédayọ̀

QUESTION:

CONTROL THEORY

LECTURER – IN – CHARGE:
DR NWEYA GERALD
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 WHAT IS CONTROL THEORY
 TERMINOLOGIES IN CONTROL THEORY
i. PRO
ii. Anaphor
iii. C-Command
iv. Equi-NPs
v. Theta Roles
vi. Raising
vii. Types of Control
 CONCLUSION
 REFERENCE
 ABSTRACT
Noam Chomsky (1980) gave a lecture that birthed the government and binding
theory that is otherwise known as ‘Principles and Parameters’. GB theory is a theory of
syntax and a phrase structured grammar in the tradition of Transformational
Grammar. The GB theory has featured some subcategories that are also termed as sub-
theories or theories. They are: X’ theory, Case Theory, Government Theory, Binding
Theory, Theta Theory, Bounding Theory and Control Theory. This presentation focuses
on one of the extensive and important part of the Principles and Parameters Theory,
which is known as the Control Theory. Some information were collected from Google
search engine and some from the copious and explicit works of some past scholars, and
that will be duly noted in my reference page. The scope of the assignment is to give a
detailed but summarized presentation to the audience of listeners in a simplified way.
INTRODUCTION
Control theory is a sub-classification or sub-theory under the government and
binding theory. It was extensively studied and worked on by several scholars, amongst
them were the likes of, Noam Avram Chomsky 1981 ‘Lectures on Government and
Binding’, Carnie, Andrew 2006 ‘A generative introduction (2nd Edition), Haegeman, L.
1994 ‘Introduction to Government and Binding theory (2nd Edition.).
Control theory is the centre of syntactic theories since its introduction into
generative grammar (e.g. Rosenbaum 1967, 1970, Postal 1970, Bresnan 1972, 1982,
Jackendoff 1972 and Bach 1979).
Control theory is a reflection of binding theory or perhaps in literal terms they
are siblings and this is because of the Co-referential traits that they both possess.
Examples of the co-referential traits are outlined below:
i. Bertie said that he felt rather ill. (Binding)
ii. John promised PROJ to clean the room. (Control)
In the above binding example the noun (Bertie) refers to the pronoun (he) in the
sentence. In the second control example, the noun also refers to the non-overt NP.
Hence, these examples connote that the Arguments are same entity.
Davies and Dubinsky (2007:3) state “Control continue to provide an excellent
window into the generative models of Syntax and a useful tool for measuring the
validity of their claims” which means that control theory from its existence has being
relevant and as also accounted for the transition of generative grammar.
The Control theory is a very broad concept that has featured many theories.
Therefore, as we proceed so many other terminologies that made up the Control theory
will be duly explained and examples will be given where and when necessary.

DEFINING CONTROL THEORY

In Lin 421 text written by Oyè Táíwò, he defined control structures as “those
structures in which a relationship holds between the subjects or object of a matrix” is
perceived as the relationship that the controller (NP in subject or object position) and
the controlee (Null overt NP in the infinitizer complement position) hold show
modification in the surface form of sentences.
Examples:
i. John tried
ii. John understands the problem
iii. John tried to understand the question
iv. John tried PROJ to understand the question.

Control theory is seen as an interpretive dependency between two arguments,

of which one is obligatorily not pronounced. The Overt NP in the A-position is known
as the CONTROLLER, the control determiner, and the interpretation of the not
pronounced one is the CONTROLEE. Although it is profiled as a Null Overt NP, it has
a theta role but it is not case assigned.
Examples:
i. Jack tried [Ø to climb the beanstalk] - Subject Control
ii. I persuaded Jill [Ø to fetch a pail of water] - Object Control

Theoretical linguistics posits the existence of the null pronoun PRO as the
theoretical basis for the analysis of control structures. The null pronoun PRO is an
element that impacts a sentence in a similar manner to how a normal pronoun impacts
a sentence, but the null pronoun is inaudible (WIKIPEDIA 2023).

The primary concerns of syntactic theories have been accounting for various
characteristics of the null controlee and the identification of its controller. Within the
domain of obligatory control, some phenomena speak to the controller: the behavior of
polyadic predicates, implicit control, variable control and control shift, and exceptional
cases like promise. Other phenomena speak to the controlee: exhaustive control, partial
control, split control, and control in embedded questions. Assuming that non-obligatory
control is a kind of elsewhere case, the phenomena relevant to non-obligatory control
are those where obligatory control restrictions on controller choice fail to materialize:
control into subjects, extra posed clauses, and some adjunct clauses. The chapter also
discusses phenomena with a non-canonical realization of the control relation: backward
control and copy control. Within the context of these phenomena, the chapter surveys
current generative approaches to the analysis of control: dominant PRO-based
approaches, the movement theory of Control, and restructuring analyses.
TERMINOLOGIES IN CONTROL THEORY

PRO
In generative linguistics, PRO (Big pro) is a pronominal determiner phrase (DP)
without a phonological content (sourced from Wikipedia). PRO is in complimentary
distribution with an overt subject control or overt object control. PRO is a null pronoun
that does not alternate with overt pronouns and it is not assigned case.

Motivations for PRO (WIKIPEDIA)

1. The Extension Projection Principle
2. The Theta Criterion
3. Binding Theory
4. Nominal Agreement.

Extension Projection Principle

In the PRO motivation, it is essential that every clause or sentence must have an
head. If there are clauses without an overt head, then it should be replaced with a covert
head. That is, the PRO.
Examples:
1) a. John promised Bill to control the situation.
b. John promised [cp[tpPROJ to control the situation]
2) a. John convinced Bill to sleep
b. John convinced Billi [cp[tp PRO to sleep]

In the context of the EPP, the existence of subject and object control follows
naturally from the fact the null pronominal subject PRO can be co-indexed with
different DP arguments.
Theta Criterion
Every verb assigns theta role to the clausal head in A-positions. This means that
theta roles must be associated with a syntactic position when there is no overt argument.
Therefore in the absence of an overt subject, the null category helps to satisfy the theta
criterion.
Example;
1) a. John promised to examine the patient.
b. John promised [PRO to examine the patient]
In the above examples, the verb “Promised” assigns AGENT role to the over
subject while “Examine” assigns AGENT to the infinitizer complement or PRO and a
PATIENT to the object overt NP.

BINDING THEORY:
There is a claim that non-finite clause have a phonological null-PRO subject and thus,
it is motivated by BINDING THEORY- which connotes that an anaphor requires a
local antecedent. PRO can function as an antecedent for Reflexive Pronouns.

(4) a. It's important [PROi to prepare myselfi properly for the exam]
(4) b. It's important [PROj to prepare oneselfj properly for the exam]
(Radford 2004: 111

If the null subject PRO were not present in examples like (a) and (b), then non-
finite clauses would contain anaphors that lacked a local antecedent, and incorrectly
predicting that such sentences to be ungrammatical. The grammaticality of such
sentences confirms that the reflexives have an antecedent, which by hypothesis is PRO.

Nominal Agreement
Evidence that non-finite clauses have a phonologically null PRO subject comes
from the fact that Predicate Nominal must agree with the subject of a Copular clause.

(5) a. They want [their son to become a millionaire/*millionaires]

b. He wants [his sons to become *a millionaire/millionaires]
(6) a. He wants [PRO to become a millionaire/*millionaires]
b. They want [PRO to become *a millionaire/millionaires]
(adapted from Radford 2004: 110)

This is illustrated in (5) and (6). Example (5) shows that the number of the
predicate nominal must agree with that of the overt subject: in (5a) the singular subject
(their son) requires a singular nominal predicate (millionaire); while in (5b), the plural
subject (his sons) requires a plural nominal predicate (millionaires). The examples in
(6) show that the same contrast holds of PRO subjects: if PRO is controlled by a singular
antecedent, in (6a) the subject of want, then the predicate nominal must be singular; if
PRO is controlled by a plural antecedent, as in (6b), then the predicate nominal must be
plural.

CONTROL VERSUS RAISING

Control and Raising are almost synonymous in their syntactic structure forms.
What distinguishes the two elements are the predicates. In control, the verbs like: try,
persuaded, promise, hope and eager. The raising verbs examples; seem, appear, tend,
happen, likely, certain etc.
In the controller - controllee relationship the control verbs assigns control to
the Null Overt Subject of the embedded clause. While the raising verb doesn’t assign
control to the Null overt Subject. Another critical thing to consider, is the semantic roles
that Control verbs to its overt subject, whereas a raising verb doesn’t assign any role to
its subject.
Examples given:
1) a. John tries to be honest. The control verb try assigns a semantic role to the subject
‘John’ (AGENT)
b. John seems to be honest. The raising verb seems doesn’t assign semantic role to
its subject.

Types of Control
Control Theory is classified into two major categories;
1. Obligatory Control
2. Non- Obligatory Control
Obligatory Control: The subcategories of this category are:
a. Subject Control
b. Object Control.
Subject Control with the obligatory control predicate: the verbs of subject control
are ‘promise’ and ‘try’. Examples are cited from (Haegeman 1994; 4.2 subject vs object
control and Wikipedia)
Examples:
 i. Susan promised to help us. - Subject control with the obligatory control
predicate promise
ii. We tried to leave. - Subject control with the obligatory control predicate try
Object Control with the obligatory control predicate; the verbs of object control
are; ’ask, told and forced’.
Examples;
i. Sue asked Bill to stop. - Object control with the obligatory control predicate ask.
ii. They told you to support the effort. - Object control with the obligatory control
predicate tell
iii. Someone forced him to do it. - Object control with the obligatory control
predicate force.

Non-Obligatory or Optional Control;

In contrast to Obligatory Control, the argument of many verbs can be controlled
even when a superordinate control verb is absent.
Examples:
i. He left, singing all the way. - Non-obligatory control of the present
participle singing
ii. Understanding nothing, the class protested. - Non-obligatory control of the present
participle understanding
iii. Holding his breath too long, Fred passed out. - Non-obligatory control of the
present participle holding

In one sense, control is obligatory in these sentences because the arguments of

the present participles singing, understanding, and holding are clearly controlled by the
matrix subjects. In another sense, however, control is non-obligatory (or optional)
because there is no control predicate present that necessitates that control
occur. General contextual factors are determining which expression is understood as
the controller. The controller is the subject in these sentences because the subject
establishes point of view.
CONCLUSION
This presentation focusses on control theory and extensively buttressed the
terminologies of control theory. By now it seems quite evident that control is an
aggregate concept serving to draw our attention to a certain class of linguistic facts.
REFERENCES