2.1 The general picture

If we consider control into islands, the picture is bipartite. On the one hand, there are well-known examples of obligatory control into certain adjuncts that have been discussed in the literature before. These comprise sentences like (1) and (2) (the latter being an Icelandic example involving extraposition).⁴

In view of these example, the question might arise of whether control is sensitive to syntactic islands at all. However, crucially, obligatory control relations cannot be established across all kinds of syntactic islands. Two cases in point are subject islands (see (3)) and speech act or sentence adverbial adjuncts (see (4), (5)), which involve non-obligatory control.⁵ The grammaticality of sentence (3) shows that the matrix subject does not obligatorily control PRO; if this were the case, Binding Principle B would be violated (due to the coindexed pronoun in the infinitival clause) and the sentence would be expected to be ungrammatical. Similarly, in (4) and (5), PRO is not controlled by a local, c-commanding antecedent; instead, we observe instances of arbitrary or speaker PRO.

This shows that control is not completely insensitive to islands, which means that it is subject to syntactic locality restrictions.

Turning to the MTC, which derives OC via movement, it is a priori unexpected that we observe OC into islands at all, since extraction out of islands is generally blocked. In order to derive cases like (1), Hornstein (1999 et seq.) therefore proposes an analysis based on sideward movement, which does not involve movement out of the adjunct. As Wood (2012) already points out, this analysis cannot readily be extended to the extraposition data in (2) (see also section 3.2). Crucially, however, these data are not the only problematic island data for the MTC, because there is a third type of construction that displays OC into islands which the MTC cannot account for: OC into non-adjoined islands.

2.2 OC into non-adjoined islands

In this section, the focus will be on data from German. The general scenario we want to look at involves infinitival clauses located inside an island in the verb’s complement position. Typically, these infinitival clauses can be extraposed in German (and sometimes have to be), but, crucially, extraposition is by no means always obligatory, as the broad range of examples shows.⁶⁷ The crucial point is that we do find grammatical non-extraposed examples (cf. also Kiss 2005: fn. 6), and these have to be derived. Note, moreover, that, due to the underlying OV-structure in German, it is easy to see whether extraposition has taken place or not because of the different resulting surface word order: if the infinitival CP is extraposed, the participle (being located in V) occurs between the sentential pronoun or the embedding DP and the right-adjoined CP; otherwise, it occurs sentence-finally. In the following examples, the latter can be observed (i.e. the participle is the last word), which means that they do not involve extraposition and clearly are of the type control into a non-adjoined island. (6) involves a sentential proform plus related CP, and (7)/(8) are standard complex NP constraint configurations. The corresponding (b)- and (c)-examples confirm the islandhood of the underlying constituent γP, since both wh-movement and topicalization are blocked.

Note that these structures are clear instances of obligatory control. This is confirmed in the following by applying several OC diagnostics from the literature (see, for instance, Hornstein 1999; Landau 2000; 2013; Sichel 2010). First, OC PRO requires a local, c-commanding antecedent; i.e., the controller must be an argument of the embedding clause and long-distance or arbitrary control are ruled out. This is illustrated in (9) and (10), in which non-c-commanding or non-local controllers are illicit.

Moreover, in (11), Binding Theory helps to make this point even clearer. Note that the German verb blamieren can be used in a reflexive or a transitive context: sich blamieren (‘to make a fool of oneself’) vs. jemanden blamieren (‘to embarrass someone’). The fact that, in (11-a), it is impossible to use a pronoun that is bound by the matrix subject in the infinitival clause suggests that Principle B is violated, which means that PRO must be controlled by Hans (i.e., we have OC).⁸ In (11-b), on the other hand, the pronoun is replaced with the simple anaphor sich in the infinitival clause. Since this is grammatical, we can conclude that sich is locally bound (following Principle A), which suggests that PRO is coreferent with the matrix subject Hans and can thus license the anaphor.⁹

What is also well-known is that OC PRO only allows a sloppy interpretation under ellipsis; this is illustrated in (12). The meaning of (12-a) is represented in (12-b), and as the indexation shows, a sloppy reading of PRO is obligatory – hence, this must be obligatory control.

Finally, it has been observed that OC PRO need not be human (see Landau 2013 a.o.). Since we find such examples involving the structure under discussion (see (13)), this also suggests that this is OC.

To sum up, this is what the data in this section tell us: (i) the controlled clauses in (6-a)–(8-a) involve OC (see (9)–(13)); (ii) the infinitival clauses are embedded inside islands because they block extraction (see (6-b)/(6-c)–(8-b)/(8-c)); (iii) and, as the word order clearly shows, these examples do not involve extraposition but are genuine examples of the type OC into a non-adjoined island.

3.1 Predictions by the MTC

The argumentation by Drummond & Hornstein (2014) outlined above provides one important insight: for the MTC, whether an adjunct is created by external merge or by internal merge (i.e. by movement) is of crucial importance.

The external merge scenario covers examples such as (16). The general underlying scheme is illustrated in (17).

As shown above, the MTC can account for data like these by invoking sideward movement: before XP is merged with a projection of α, the DP occupying the controllee position inside XP can move sideways to the controller position and thereby establish the control relation.¹² This means that sideward movement precedes adjunction (and is therefore licit).

The scenario which concerns adjuncts created by movement is illustrated in (18).

The crucial difference between (17) and (18) is that in the latter case concatenation of XP with the main derivation takes place much earlier, namely inside γP. Hence, sideward movement is blocked: at the point in the derivation when XP (and with it the controllee inside it) is still unconnected to the rest (i.e. before γP is completed), the target position of the required movement (=Specα, the controller position) is not yet part of the derivation, given a bottom-up derivation. In addition, movement out of XP at the point represented in (18) (i.e. after adjunction has taken place) yields a classical CED effect. So neither ordering, first sideward movement and then adjunction to αP, nor first adjunction to αP and then movement from the controllee to the controller position, can derive (18).

There is, however, a third possibility to allow for movement from the controllee to the controller position in (18): if movement takes place after XP is merged into the derivation but before it is adjoined to αP (in (18), this would correspond to movement out of γP to Specα, before XP moves to the adjoined position). Note, however, that this option is only available if γP itself is not an island for extraction (nor is any other YP an island that is dominated by γP and dominates (the base position of) XP).

This leads to a third scenario involving control into islands: the one illustrated in (19). It does not involve control into an adjunct but rather control into a non-adjoined island. For the MTC, such a structure cannot exist (recall that we are talking about obligatory control): it is impossible to extract the controllee out of γP before the latter is merged into the structure and becomes an island (i.e. sideward movement, in analogy to control into adjuncts, is not an option), because the landing site is not yet available at this point; but once it is concatenated, extraction out of γP is blocked because of γP’s island status; see (19).

To sum up, the MTC makes the following predictions: (i) OC into an extraposed adjunct (=scenario 2) can only be derived if the underlying constituent γP is not an island; (ii) OC into non-adjoined islands (=scenario 3) is predicted to be impossible. However, control scenarios of the latter type do exist – this has been shown explicitly in section 2. And this means that they fall outside the purview of what the MTC can handle.

3.2 Extraposition in Icelandic and German

But as mentioned above, even control into extraposed clauses is problematic for the MTC if the underlying constituent from which extraposition takes place is an island. This has already been reported for Icelandic in Wood (2012; 2014), and in this section, I will moreover have a brief look at object extraposition in German.

The set of data from Icelandic considered here is taken from Wood (2012), who made this observation: if we look at sentences with an extraposed infinitival clause, an asymmetry arises between movement and control. While obligatory control across the sentential pronoun það is grammatical (see (20)), this pronoun blocks movement of all sorts; i.e., both standard A′- and A-movement across það is impossible, as illustrated in (21) (involving topicalization) and (22) (involving raising).

Let us now take a look at similar data from the literature on German. We can observe that, in German, we also find sentential pronouns of the það-type; moreover, as has been noted before (cf., for instance, Webelhuth 1992; Müller 1995), they also occur optionally and block CP topicalization; see (23).

While (23) involves only finite complement clauses, (24)–(26) show that the pattern can also be extended to non-finite complement clauses and topicalization involving extraction out of the embedded CP: as in Icelandic, the latter is illicit (see (24-b)–(26-b)), whereas control across the intervening pronoun is not blocked (see (24-a)–(26-a)).¹³

In fact, the observed intervention effect does not only occur with topicalization; other instances of A′-movement are equally affected, as example (27) involving wh-movement shows.¹⁴ The same holds for A-movement: as in Icelandic (see (22)), the sentential pronoun is ruled out in raising constructions (cf. the ambiguous verb beginnen (‘begin’), which occurs in a raising construction in (28) and in a control construction in (29)).

To sum up, it has been shown that these extraposition data from German behave like Icelandic in neither allowing A- nor A′-movement out of the extraposed infinitive. This means that there is no point in the derivation at which extraction is possible, which suggests that the underlying constituent from which extraposition takes place must be an island for leftward movement.¹⁵ However, control into the extraposed infinitive is common, hence, these extraposition data also pose a problem to the MTC.

4.1 Phase theory and non-movement theories of control

Although focus here is on the comparison with the MTC, let us briefly take a look at traditional PRO-based theories of control. Here, the locality problem is relatively obvious. Without further assumptions, the distance between controller and controllee (=PRO) is too large to be compatible with phase theory, see (31).

Of course, considerations like these were not an issue when the first PRO-based theories were proposed in the 1980s. However, since the development of phase theory, little attention has been devoted to its compatibility with control theory. In fact, two PRO-based theories which have adopted the phase model at an underlying level are those by Landau (2000; 2015) (although locality considerations also do not play a central role there). The theory proposed in Landau (2000 et seq.) involves an Agree relation between a functional head in the matrix clause and PRO in the embedded SpecT position, for which he originally proposed a relaxation of the PIC in order to make it work (this was in connection with his analysis of exhaustive control); see Landau (2000: 69; 2004: 843). In Landau (2015), he adopted an alternative view: he commented on the Agree model and suggested that “OC complements […] are weak phases” (Landau 2015: 12). As a consequence, PRO is still accessible inside the infinitival complement clause even if it is not at its edge.

However, both views involve a relativization of the underlying locality restrictions (which means that the representational residue is enlarged, i.e. the amount of representation that must be kept in the workspace in between the spellout of two phases; see also footnote 1). So what this paper sets out to do is answer the following question: is it possible to model control in a strictly phase-based theory in which extra assumptions that ease locality restrictions are not needed? This is the conceptual motivation for sketching this alternative model, although Landau (2015) lists some more shortcomings of the Agree-based model from Landau (2000).¹⁶

In his two-tiered theory of control, Landau (2015) proposes movement of PRO to the edge of the embedded clause (=SpecFin in his model), which is thus compatible with the PIC (although this is not the driving force behind the assumed movement). The underlying idea is that exhaustive control (EC) is derived via a predication relation: PRO, which is assumed to be a minimal pronoun with the features {D, uφ}, moves to SpecFin (=the edge of the infinitival clause), since the predicative head Fin is looking for a nominal operator (i.e., [uD] on Fin attracts PRO). As a result, PRO-movement yields an open predicate, which is applied to the controlling DP and thereby saturated.

So in contrast to Landau (2000 et seq.), Landau (2015) also assumes movement of PRO to the phase edge, an assumption I will also argue for below. One major difference between his model and the basic assumptions of the approach developed here concerns the different impact of partial control (PC).¹⁷ While Landau takes the EC-PC split to be the source of a distinct syntactic treatment, I follow Pearson (2013; 2016), Pitteroff et al. (2017a), a.o., in assuming that partial control readings are construed in the semantics and do not give rise to a different implementation in the syntactic component.¹⁸

On the other hand, the central data that lead to the postulation of the hybrid theory of control (OC into islands) is not discussed in Landau (2015); so the foci of the two approaches differ, and similarities in the technical implementation have developed independently.¹⁹ A more thorough discussion of PC would go beyond the scope of this paper, but the interested reader is referred to Pitteroff et al. (2017a) as regards arguments for a semantic treatment of PC. The focus here will be control into islands and the locality of control dependencies. Therefore we now turn to the MTC and its compatibility with phase theory.

4.2 Phase theory and the MTC

Since the basic assumption of the MTC is that controller and controllee are related via movement, this puts the locality question in a different light. If the MTC is right, the control relation does not have to be established once the controller is merged into the derivation – instead, the only thing that must be guaranteed is that movement is an available option. In other words, the potential problem is not that the distance between controller and controllee might be too large to ultimately license control; that control involves a non-local dependency instead implies that movement has to be split into available movement steps, and the potential danger is that the designated controller position might not be accessible via movement. To stick with example (30-a) (John tries to win), consider the structures in (32). (32-a) displays the basic idea that the embedded subject is a copy of John, left behind by movement. Since the underlying idea of phase theory is that material that has been rendered inaccessible cannot be moved anymore and that only material in the previous phase head or phase edge is in the accessible domain (see footnote 1), the movement indicated in (32-a) is only compatible with the PIC if it proceeds via the edge of the CP phase, as indicated in (32-b).

A movement-based approach to control is therefore compatible in principle with phase theory as long as it is assumed that the non-local movement relation between controller and controllee is broken up into smaller movement steps which proceed from phase edge to phase edge. So far, so good; up to this point the MTC seems to be ideally suited to a local derivational approach to control. However, as Drummond & Hornstein (2014) have pointed out, successive-cyclic movement from phase edge to phase edge undermines the MTC-based account of why control into adjuncts is possible in examples like (33-a), whereas wh-extraction out of adjuncts is not (see (33-b)).

The MTC accounts for this contrast in grammaticality as follows: (32-a) can be derived via sideward movement, as the adjunction site (adjunction to vP) is above the target of sideward movement (=Specv). When deriving (32-b), however, the target position of wh-movement is SpecC, i.e. the adjunction site (=adjunction to vP) is below this position. Therefore, the only available order of operations is (i) concatenating adjunct and main clause and then (ii) extracting who out of the adjunct. This follows automatically from the Extension Condition (see Chomsky 1993; 1995), according to which syntactic operations have to extend the root. However, this implies at the same time that (32-b) violates the CED and is therefore ungrammatical.

Note that in order to derive the ungrammaticality of (32-b), it is absolutely essential that wh-movement targets a position above the adjunction site. As regards the site of adjunction, Drummond & Hornstein (2014) point out that “the relevant class of adjuncts must adjoin below C” (Drummond & Hornstein 2014: 451); so if wh-movement directly targets SpecC, the ungrammaticality of (32-b) follows. However, any intermediate landing site for wh-phrases below SpecC would undermine the finding of (32-b)’s ungrammaticality. Therefore, the assumption that wh-phrases move successive-cyclically via the phase edge Specv (as required by the PIC) cannot be maintained by the MTC: if the wh-phrase stopped in Specv (a position below the adjunction site), sideward movement could apply before adjunction takes place, and the ungrammatical sentence in (32-b) could ultimately be derived. Hence, Drummond & Hornstein’s movement-based account of control into adjuncts is, after all, incompatible with a strict interpretation of phase theory. So if we want to explore the possibility of modeling control relations in a local way restricted by the PIC, we have to come up with an alternative.

5.1 Basic assumptions

In this section, we want to take a look at such an alternative approach, the so-called hybrid theory of control. It illustrates what a theory of control could look like that is compatible with both a strict interpretation of phase theory and all three control scenarios discussed in section 3.1. In this section, the basic underlying assumptions of the HTC will be introduced, followed by the data considered before. Basically, the idea is the following: the controllee has to move closer to the controller position to be able to establish the control relation in a local configuration (in accordance with the PIC); however, the controllee is not forced to move out of islands to license control into islands – just being at their edge suffices.

Technically, this is implemented as follows: the controllee is merged in the derivation as an empty argument (= EA) which is referentially defective. This is encoded in syntax in terms of the feature specification {D, β:_}. The β-feature can be viewed as a syntactically reified binding index feature, and that EA carries an unvalued β-feature indicates that EA needs to be referentially identified. This is achieved under Agree (which is assumed to involve upward probing) with another element bearing a valued β-feature. At the C-I interface, Agree involving β-feature checking is interpreted as binding.²⁰ Overt DPs bear valued β-features, which means that they typically function as goal for EA and end up as binders or controllers of EA.²¹ Formally, we can adopt a version of Wurmbrand’s definition of (Reverse) Agree (cf. Wurmbrand 2011: 3):²²

The derivation of obligatory control then proceeds as follows: the D-feature allows EA to be merged into an argument position; from here it probes upwards to find a goal/licensor (as to upward probing, cf. also Schäfer 2008; Hicks 2009; Zeijlstra 2012; Wurmbrand 2011; 2013; Bjorkman & Zeijlstra 2014). If there is no potential antecedent present in the phase containing EA (as is the case in OC due to the non-local dependency), the need to establish an Agree configuration forces it to move to the phase edge, from which it probes further (see section 5.2 for details).²³ When a DP is merged, EA finds a goal and can be licensed under Agree; i.e., the β-feature of EA is valued, which means that EA is interpreted as being bound by the controller.²⁴

Comparing the HTC to its predecessors, we can conclude that, as in the MTC, the controllee has to move to be licensed, the licensing conditions are not control-specific (i.e., no independent control module is needed), and non-obligatory control might involve last resort if no syntactic licensor can be found (see section 7 for details). As in PRO-based theories, however, it is assumed that the controllee is an independent argument receiving its own θ-role (i.e., the Theta Criterion is not dispensed with). In addition, as in Landau (2000; 2004), Agree is a basic licensing mechanism of control. The hybrid nature of the approach thus follows from the fact that the licensing of control involves first movement and then Agree.²⁵

5.2 Successive-cyclic movement of EA

Before we turn to concrete examples that demonstrate how the HTC works in practice, let us briefly address the following questions: how is movement of EA triggered, why does it stop at the edge of islands, and is it ensured that it stops in time to prevent overgeneration?

The question of what triggers successive-cyclic movement is presumably as old as the idea that movement stops in intermediate positions. One possible implementation has been proposed by Chomsky (2000; 2001; 2008) in terms of EPP or edge features, an approach that has been taken up and advanced by Müller (2010; 2011). Sticking to the underlying assumption that all instances of movement are feature-driven, one way to trigger intermediate movement steps is the insertion of so-called edge features on the head of the target phase. The insertion of these features is regulated by the so-called Edge Feature Condition.²⁶

As Müller (2010: 37) explains, “[g]iven [(35)], phase heads can be assigned additional (i.e., noninherent) edge features in the course of the derivation “if the assignment has an effect on outcome” – that is, if it serves to implement intermediate movement steps required by the PIC”. In the case at hand, this means the following: if the β-feature of EA cannot be valued within the current phase, the only way to maintain the possibility of valuing it later in the derivation involves movement of EA to the phase edge to ensure that it remains accessible. Hence, edge feature insertion takes place and triggers movement of EA to the edge of the current phase.²⁷

Successive-cyclic movement of EA either stops if a potential goal enters the derivation or if EA occurs at the edge of an island and any further step involved movement out of this island. Let us have a closer look at the second scenario. What is crucial for the HTC is that the availability of Agree and movement are dissociated since extraction out of islands must be prohibited, whereas licensing of control into (certain) islands under Agree must be possible. Therefore it is important to keep in mind that although accessibility (i.e. being at the very least at the phase edge of the previous phase) is a precondition for both Agree and movement, this is not yet a sufficient condition for the latter. In the case of islands, movement within the island (i.e. in particular to the edge of the highest phase contained in it) is not restricted; it is movement beyond which is forbidden.

In fact, for the HTC it is not really important what exactly this extra requirement for movement is which finally blocks extraction out of islands, but, to be concrete, let us follow Müller’s (2010; 2011) proposal. What he suggests is that the Edge Feature Condition be slightly modified in such a way that edge feature insertion is only possible if the phase head in the targeted phase is still active, which means that it must still have some structure-building or probe feature on it.²⁸ In the context of islands, however, the typical configuration is this: the current phase head has already been rendered inactive when we try to extract something out of the island, because the insertion of islands is typically the last operation that takes place in a phase, and, as a result, all features on the phase head have already been used up. Thus, no edge feature can be assigned to the phase head anymore, which means that nothing can move out of the island to the current phase edge.

But what about direct movement out of the island into a higher phase (i.e. without intermediate stop at the current phase’s edge)? This is also ruled out since material inside the island is no longer accessible after the completion of the current phase – so we would end up with a violation of the PIC. Hence, movement out of islands is predicted to be ungrammatical (even if the element we try to extract is located at the island’s edge), while Agree into an island is possible (of course only as long as its edge is still accessible); we will return to the latter scenario in section 6.3.²⁹

Since successive-cyclic movement of EA is apparently only stopped if the latter is trapped in an island or Agree can be established, the question arises of whether the theory overgenerates in the following sense: if there is no island involved, we expect EA to be able to move successive-cyclically from phase edge to phase edge until it finally finds a goal. In fact, examples involving long EA-movement are rare, because the standard scenario is this: the embedded clause containing EA is an internal argument of the control verb (unless the clause containing EA is a subject clause, which is an island and thus stops EA-movement anyway);³⁰ this implies that not only does the next higher clause host the control verb, but also the latter’s external (and potentially second internal) argument, i.e. DPs which stop EA-movement because they can function as goal. The only structure one can try to come up with is a combination of control and raising (since raising predicates do not have an external argument that could function as goal for EA), see (36).

(36) is an example in which EA is base-generated in the most deeply embedded clause, raises (via SpecT) into the medial clause, moves to the phase edge SpecC, and finally finds a goal in the matrix clause. Hence, the HTC predicts that the sentence should be grammatical, which it is. Note, moreover, that (36) illustrates again the locality problem of the standard PRO-based theories alluded to in the beginning – if we do not assume EA-movement to SpecC, the controllee is no longer accessible when the controller John enters the derivation.³¹³²

However, what about examples like (37) or (38), which are ungrammatical? Since no island restricts movement, it should be possible for EA to move to SpecC, from where it could probe upwards and agree with John in the matrix clause.

What distinguishes the grammatical example of long EA-movement in (36) from the ungrammatical ones in (37) and (38) is the occurrence of an expletive in the latter case. Why should an expletive block licensing of EA by the matrix subject? A potential explanation would be to assume that the expletive is, at first sight, a potential goal for EA. This would imply that expletives bear valued β-features and can thus agree with EA, which would prevent EA from moving beyond the expletive (note that it was suggested above that overt nominals generally bear valued β-features). But recall what β-features are about: checking relations involving β-features are interpreted as binding; i.e., a valued β-feature of an R-expression, for instance, can be viewed as encoding its reference. Talking about expletives, they lack this semantics; so if they bear a β-feature, its value must be negatively defined, which could be represented as Ø-value.³³ As a consequence, the Agree relation between the expletive and EA can syntactically take place, but it cannot be interpreted at the C-I interface and the derivation crashes.

Moreover, I think that sentences like (37) (which involves the expletive there) face an additional problem since licensing of the existential construction also fails. Broadly speaking, EA would have to function as associate NP in the underlying expletive-associate relation, but since EA is defective at various levels, it cannot accomplish this task. In terms of Hazout’s (2004; 2008) theory of existential constructions, this can be explained as follows. According to Hazout, the relation between there and its associate is an underlying subject-predicate relation that gives rise to an agreement relation. Crucially, this agreement relation comes about as a result of percolating up the φ-features of the predicate nominal.³⁴ However, EA is referentially defective; thus, it does not only bear an unvalued β-feature, but also unvalued φ-features, which renders it useless for the licensing of the existential construction. To sum up, as regards sentences involving expletive there, we can conclude that licensing fails in two directions: both there and EA try to get licensed by the other, but both attempts fail.

5.3 Subject control and the HTC

Although empirically, the main focus of the present paper is on control into (non-)adjoined islands, any control theory should be able to derive standard subject control configurations. Let us therefore briefly go back to our initial example (30-a), repeated in (39-a), to see how subject control is derived under the HTC. As for EA, it is assumed that this referentially defective argument is part of the lexicon, and inserting it into the numeration is in principle optional. However, if it is not inserted in (39-b), the derivation will crash later on because of a violation of the Theta Criterion. Hence, only the numeration in (39-b) can derive (39-a).³⁵

The derivation then proceeds as follows. In Specv, EA is inserted as the external argument of win and is assigned the latter’s external θ-role.³⁶ Then it moves to the embedded SpecT position to check the EPP on T,³⁷ and finally to the edge of the embedded CP in order to remain accessible, as it still needs to value its β-feature; so the last step simply takes place in order to prevent the derivation from crashing (see (40)).

Now the matrix clause is derived. After merging the matrix verb try, the matrix subject John enters the derivation in Specv and is assigned the external θ-role by the matrix predicate. Note that, due to its movement to the edge of CP, EA is still accessible when John is merged into the structure (John is then in Specv of the matrix clause and EA in SpecC, the edge of the preceding phase; see (41)).

So EA’s β-feature can finally be valued by the matrix subject under Agree, and EA is interpreted as being bound by John.³⁸

5.4 Object control, promise-verbs, and the HTC

So far, we have only considered examples in which the control verb takes two arguments, the infinitival clause and an external argument; the controller was therefore always the external argument, i.e. the subject of the matrix clause. In this section, we will briefly turn to control verbs that select in addition a second internal argument.

Let us first turn to standard object control constructions and see how examples like (42) can be derived.

The derivation of (42) proceeds as follows: first, the embedded clause is built (which is identical to the derivation of the embedded clause in subject control structures). In Specv, EA is inserted as the external argument of surrender and is assigned the latter’s external θ-role. Then it moves to the embedded SpecT position to check the EPP-feature on T, and finally to the edge of the embedded CP in order to remain accessible, as it still needs to value its β-feature; see (43).

Next, force merges with the embedded CP and θ-marks the latter. Then, Bill enters the derivation in SpecV and is assigned the second internal θ-role of force. Since Bill and EA are now both accessible and the former c-commands EA, the control relation can be established – Bill can value EA’s β-feature under Agree. As a result, we get object control; see (44).

I do not have much to add to the discussion of promise-verbs or control shift (cf., for instance, Bresnan 1982; Farkas 1988; Sag & Pollard 1991; Petter 1998; Stiebels 2007; Polinsky 2011; Landau 2013); but for the sake of completeness, let us briefly have a look at examples like (45).

What is unexpected at first sight is that EA apparently does not choose Mary, the matrix object, as controller, although it is merged into the derivation prior to the matrix subject. However, this can be explained if we have a closer look at the type of verb that is used in the matrix clause. Typically, control verbs used in this context are attitude verbs, i.e. verbs that are used to “report on a mental state or a communicative act of some individual” (Pearson 2015: 1).³⁹ Attitudinal contexts involve an attitude holder, “the bearer of the attitude or the agent of the reported speech act” (Pearson 2015: 1), and it has been proposed in the literature that this attitude holder is represented in the syntax.⁴⁰ This means that in sentences like (45), a logophoric center is projected in the left periphery of the embedded clause, which introduces the attitude holder in a specifier position; as a result, the underlying structure is as shown in (46).

Crucially, this structure reveals that the closest binder for EA is not an argument in the matrix clause, but rather the attitude holder inside the embedded CP (which bears a valued β-feature since it is referentially specified). For (45), this means that EA’s β-feature can be checked under Agree at the point in the derivation shown in (47).⁴¹

Whether the attitude holder is the referent of the matrix subject is determined by semantic/pragmatic factors. I will defer a more thorough discussion to future research since a full-fledged analysis of these data is beyond the scope of this paper.

6.1 OC into adjuncts and the HTC

We start with control into adjuncts created by external merge. This is exemplified by example (48) (repeated from (16-a)).

Again, we are free to choose between numeration (49-a) and (49-b); however, in (49-a), the derivation will crash because it will inevitably violate the Theta Criterion, since there is no external argument for enter.

The adjunct is then derived as follows: EA is inserted in Specv, where it gets its θ-role from enter. Since its β-feature is still unvalued, it starts moving, first to SpecT, where it checks the EPP-feature on T, and then to SpecC, the edge of the phase and the edge of the adjunct.⁴²

As for the main clause, heard first merges with Mary (building the VP) and assigns its internal θ-role to it. Next, heard moves to v, Mary checks Accusative Case, and John is merged into Specv, where it is assigned the external θ-role of heard. (51) illustrates this point in the derivation.

Now the adjunct is merged into the derivation, which is illustrated in (52).⁴³

Here we have the following configuration: both John and the adjunct are at the edge of the vP phase, meaning that they c-command each other in the sense of the category-based definition of c-command by Kayne (1994), see (53).⁴⁴

For (52), this has the following effect: since only one segment of v′ dominates John, the category v′ (which all in all consists of two segments) does not dominate the latter. The first category dominating John is therefore vP, which also dominates the adjunct (consequently John c-commands the adjunct). Hence, John also c-commands EA at the adjunct’s edge, which is still accessible at this point of the derivation.⁴⁵ As a result, John can function as licensor of EA – it can value EA’s β-feature and thereby establish the control relation.⁴⁶

6.2 Non-adjoined islands and the HTC

Let us now turn to control into a non-adjoined island (i.e. scenario 3 from section 3, which could not be derived by the MTC since sideward movement cannot circumvent such an island). As an example, consider (55) (repeated from (8-a)).

EA is inserted as the external argument of the embedded predicate, and since its β-feature is unvalued, it moves to the edge of CP. This suffices for the licensing of EA, since in the next phase (=vP) the controller is merged into the derivation (in Specv) and can license EA at the edge of the previous phase under Agree (see (56)).⁴⁷

Note that the intervening DP das Angebot is not a potential licensor of EA since it does not c-command EA. Moreover, it can be excluded that there is an empty controller inside the island in form of a covert PP in the complement position of the noun: although Angebot (‘offer’) might take overt complements of this type (see (58)), this is not the case for other nouns that can occur inside such islands (see (59)).

But what about more deeply embedded infinitival clauses, i.e. scenarios in which more phases intervene between EA and the matrix subject? Consider the pair of sentences in (60). The verb inside the infinitival clause is chosen in such a way that it can be used reflexively (sich weiterbilden (‘to educate oneself further’)) or in a transitive way (jemanden weiterbilden (‘to educate sb. further’)). In this way, the underlying control relationships become more obvious, since the reflexive sich is only licensed if it is bound by EA (Binding Principle A) and a pronoun coindexed with EA is necessarily ruled out (Binding Principle B).

Let us first have a look at (60-a). It has the same structure as the examples discussed so far in this subsection: EA is inside a complex DP that functions as a direct object (das Angebot, sich/ihn weiterzubilden (‘the offer to educate himself/him further’)). In such a configuration, we can observe obligatory subject control. This is confirmed by the Principle B effect in (60-a), which indicates that EA must be bound by the matrix subject, as predicted by the HTC.⁴⁸

In (60-b), the infinitival clause is more deeply embedded since the complex DP in which it is located is part of a relative clause that modifies the matrix object. As a result, two phase boundaries intervene between the subject trace (t₁) and EA. Following the HTC, we thus expect that subject control by Peter should be blocked. This prediction is indeed borne out as the binding effects in (60-b) show. The fact that the sentence is grammatical if the pronoun ihn is coindexed with the matrix subject Peter indicates that EA must bear another index; otherwise, the configuration would give rise to a Principle B violation because the pronoun would be bound in its binding domain.

To sum up, (60-a) shows that obligatory control holds if EA and the controller are only separated by one phase boundary; if more phase boundaries intervene, as in (60-b), obligatory control by the matrix subject is blocked.⁴⁹ And this is exactly what the HTC predicts.

6.3 Extrapositon and the HTC

Finally, let us take a look at the second scenario introduced in section 3, namely control into adjuncts created by movement (see (61), repeated from (18)). I suggest that this is also the underlying structure for control configurations involving extraposition.

In the literature, different ways to account for extraposition have been proposed. I will follow the movement-based approach (cf., among others, Bierwisch 1963; Reinhart 1980; Baltin 1982; Büring & Hartmann 1995; 1997; Müller 1995; 1997), which means that in examples like (62) and (63), the surface position of the extraposed CP is taken to be the result of rightward movement.⁵⁰

As already mentioned in section 2.2, extraposition of the infinitival clause is sometimes obligatory (as in (62)) and sometimes optional (as in (63)).⁵¹

However, this does not play any role in the derivation of the control pattern, which means that (62) and (63) are eventually derived in the same way. In the following, I will first focus on (62), since the occurrence of the sentential pronoun requires some additional remarks.⁵²

As far as the underlying structure of examples with a sentential pronoun is concerned (as in (62)), I assume (following Bennis 1986; Müller 1995; Vikner 1995; and others) that the sentential pronoun is referential and occupies the complement position of the verb. As regards the underlying position of the embedded CP, different proposals have been made in the literature, and I follow Thráinsson (1979), Ross (1986), Müller (1995), Wood (2014), a.o., in assuming that the sentential pronoun and the CP are base-generated as one constituent before the latter is extraposed, i.e. right-adjoined to vP.⁵³ (64) illustrates the point in the derivation when extraposition has just taken place and vP has been completed.

And how is the control relation in examples like (62) and (63) derived? In fact, the analysis of control into extraposed adjuncts does not differ from the analysis of control into non-adjoined islands, since the control relation can already be established before extraposition takes place. Inside the infinitival clause, the empty argument EA is inserted as external argument of the predicate verletzen (‘hurt’) in (62) and spielen (‘play’) in (63). EA then moves to the edge of CP, since it still needs to value its β-feature. Note that it cannot move any further since the DP that embeds this CP is an island.⁵⁴ However, when the controller enters the derivation in Specv, EA is still accessible, and the control relation can thus be established under Agree in exactly the same way as outlined in the previous section. For sentence (62), this is illustrated in (65). (The relevant structure for (63) looks as indicated in tree (57) above.)⁵⁵

Finally, it is worth mentioning that, in contrast to scenario 1, both scenario 2 and 3 might also involve object control (depending on the control predicate involved). This is illustrated by the German data in (66): (66-a) involves object control into a non-extraposed CP, while (66-b) involves object control into an extraposed CP.

In (66-a), EA moves to the highest phase edge inside the complex DP (i.e. to SpecC) in search of a suitable goal. In this position it is still accessible when the indirect object DP ihr (‘her.DAT’) is merged into the derivation in SpecV, so the latter functions as a goal and licenses EA under Agree. (Note that, again, the intervening DP die Chance cannot agree with EA because it does not c-command it.) As far as (66-b) is concerned, it has the same underlying structure as (66-a) if we follow the movement-based approach to extraposition; so the control relation can be derived in the same way as in (66-a) (i.e. before extraposition takes place). It can be concluded that the data in (66) also pattern as expected under the HTC.

To sum up, the gist of the HTC analysis is that EA does not have to move all the way up to the controller position; instead, it is enough to move to the edge of the preceding phase, which means, with respect to the island examples discussed above, that extraction out of the island is not required to establish the control relation. An MTC account, by contrast, would, by definition, have to assume that EA moves out of the island, which is impossible if the sideward movement strategy cannot be applied (as in the case of non-adjoined islands).

7.1 Arbitrary control

A first case in point is the following example, which does not have a single DP argument that could function as a controller.

That EA must be part of the numeration follows from Theta Theory (a derivation without EA inevitably crashes since it violates the Theta Criterion), Binding Theory (EA helps to satisfy Principle A since it can be the local antecedent of an anaphor, see below), and the EPP (EA satisfies the EPP in the subject clause). As regards its interpretation, the non-overt subject refers to an arbitrary individual, so this is a case of arbitrary control.

How is this derived under the HTC? Following Preminger (2014), the underlying assumption is that arbitrary reference is the semantic interpretation afforded to an EA whose β-feature has gone unvalued in the course of the derivation in narrow syntax. Hence, arbitrary control can be seen as the result of a last resort strategy (cf. also McFadden & Sundaresan 2016 for similar assumptions).⁵⁶⁵⁷

Under the HTC, the derivation of (67) is as follows: when the subject clause is derived, EA is inserted in Specv, where it is θ-marked by shave and binds the anaphor (see (68-a)).⁵⁸ Since its β-feature is still unvalued, EA then moves to SpecT in search of a potential goal, thereby satisfying the EPP on T (see (68-b)). Then, because there is still no controller available, it moves on to SpecC, the edge of the next phase; see (68-c).

The subject clause is then merged into the external argument position of the predicate dangerous, ending up in SpecT (where it checks the EPP on T). However, since there is definitely no goal available that could value EA’s β-feature, EA is ultimately interpreted as arbitrary PRO; see (69).

7.2 NOC and the impact of discourse

Apart from arbitrary control, NOC also comprises examples like (70)–(72), in which the interpretation of EA seems to depend on discourse factors. In (70), the controller of EA, Amy, is part of the sentence; however, it is an example of long-distance control since it “involves discourse or speech act participants or controllers in a clause higher than the respective clause-embedding predicate” (see Stiebels 2015: 428). In (71), the controller (Ohio State) is also part of the discourse, but it is not contained in the same sentence as EA; and in (72), the controller is not realized overtly at all but corresponds to the speaker.

What all of these examples have in common is that they involve a salient entity in the discourse (which can be the speaker or a non-local antecedent) whose attitude is being reflected; in other words, we are dealing with attitudinal contexts. As outlined already in section 5.4, I assume that in such contexts, a logophoric center is projected in the left periphery which introduces this attitude holder syntactically in a specifier position (see also the references cited in section 5.4). As a result, this attitude holder can function as a goal for EA and the latter can be licensed under Agree. So strictly speaking, this is OC involving the attitude holder as controller; but since the attitude holder is not realized overtly, it gives the impression that there is no local, obligatory controller around (see also Fischer & Flaate Høyem 2017). In any case, this basically means that licensing of EA in examples like (70)–(72) boils down to standard logophoric licensing (see also Zribi-Hertz 1989), which is not surprising since NOC PRO has long been shown to behave like a logophor (see, for instance, Kuno 1975; Landau 2013; 2015).⁵⁹

So if we compare the derivation of arbitrary control in (69) with that of example (71), which also involves a subject clause containing EA, the difference is simply that the latter involves an attitude holder which can license EA under Agree (see (73)).

Note, moreover, that theories that take NOC to be logophoric in nature make the following prediction: if a sentence is changed in such a way that the attitude holder changes, it is predicted that EA must be interpreted differently as well. This is borne out in the following example, which contrasts with (70) (Amy sagte, dass es Spaß machte, mit Dan zu tanzen/‘Amy said that dancing with Dan had been fun’). In (74), it is no longer Amy’s point of view that is reported on; hence, EA cannot refer to Amy anymore.