0. CENTRAL GOALS

1. 0. CENTRAL GOALS i. To provide a case study in reductivist, eliminative minimalism and ‘generative’ explanation. ii. To provide a case study in the movement analysis of Control for Modern Greek. iii. To present data challenging the purported relation between Obligatory Control and Tense. The data informs the discussion of the relationship between Control & Tense vs Control & Agreement. Much current work links Control &Tense. Our data provide one domain where this is problematic. 1. INTRODUCTION: THE MINIMALIST PROGRAM’S EXPLANATION BY DEDUCTION The MP advances explanatory adequacy by deducing stipulative principles/filters of GB from the smallest number of simple, “natural” assumptions. Maximize explanation through deduction. Our paper is a case study in this minimalist methodology relative to subjunctive na clauses (henceforth na clauses) in Modern Greek. Consider the embedded clauses below, which are morphologically identical: i) o Yanis kseri [na horevi *(i Maria) ] the.nom Johni.nom know.3sg.pres na eci/*j dance.3sg.pres *(the.nom Mary.nom) ‘John knows how to dance’ *'John knows how Mary to dance‘ ii) o Yanis elpizi [na horevi (i Maria) ] the.nom John.nom hope.3sg.pres na dance.3sg.pres (the.nom Mary.nom) ‘John hopes that Mary dances’ (4) The phenomena to be explored involve the fact that: (i) in some cases the na clause “behaves” like an obligatory control (OC) infinitival (3i) (ii) in other cases the na clause “behaves” like a non-obligatory control (NOC) finite clause (3ii) (5) What is it exactly that distinguishes (3i) from (3ii)? The standard OC vs NOC diagnostics: (6) One of our goals is to reveal problems with a classic GB analysis of na clauses. These problems turn out to be relevant even for current minimalist analyses. (7) Another goal: We attempt to deduce the properties of na clauses by appealing to the following: i. Certain predicates select phi-defective T (in their complement); other predicates take phi-complete T. ii. “Degrees of Agreement”: overt morphology & abstract Agr are related via individual phi-features, not the phi-complex as a whole. It is an irreducible property of verbs that they select either defective or complete T. This simple featural distinction goes a surprisingly long way in deducing, and hence explaining (in the sense indicated above), the properties of na clauses; and has consequences beyond. (8) The explanatory and reductivist Minimalist framework includes: a. the Probe-Goal analysis, with Chomsky's (2000, 2001) hypothesis that only a phi-complete element may check Case; see also Pires (2001, and later work). b. the construal-as-movement analysis of Hornstein (1999) (a prime example of reductive minimalism!) c. the derivational approach to syntactic relations (see Epstein (1999), Epstein et al (1998), Epstein & Seely (1999, 2002, and forthcoming). (9) We argue that under this reductivist framework, the (central) properties of na clauses follow and the challenges we reveal for previous accounts dissolve. We attempt explanatory depth and wider empirical coverage. 2. A CLASSIC GB ANALYSIS OF NA CLAUSES: Control in Modern Greek, Varlokosta (1993) (10) For Control in Modern Greek, the properties of the two types of na clauses reduce to hypothesized differences between obligatorily controlled (OC) PRO vs. (NOC) pro; combined with a purportedly independent semantic difference between the na clauses themselves. (11) What is the Control in Modern Greek's analysis? a. It adopts the contention that PRO is anaphoric and that it therefore displays OC properties. b. Alternatively, since pro is pronominal, it displays NOC properties. c. Given this PRO vs. pro distinction, the trick is to guarantee that PRO is the subject of OC, while the subject position of the NOC na clauses, if empty, is necessarily pro. d. The distribution of PRO and pro is tied to event structure in the following way: (12) a. NP verb [pro na verb…] b. NP verb [PRO na verb …] event1 event2 single event That is, for Control in Modern Greek, pro emerges when the na clause represents an event separate from the matrix event; PRO emerges when the na clause does not represent a separate event. (13) How do we “know” when the na clause encodes an event separate from the event encoded by the matrix predicate vs. when the na clause is, in effect, “incorporated” into the matrix event? (14) Control in Modern Greek provides two diagnostics: If multiple events, then the na clause may have a past tense specification (15a) AND/OR a temporal adverbial independent of the matrix (15b). If single event, then the na clause can NOT have past tense (16a) AND can NOT have its own temporal adverbial (16b). (15) Multiple events a. o Yanis elpizi na efige i Maria the.nom John.nom hope.3sg.pres na leave.3sg/past the.nom Mary.nom ‘John hopes that Mary left’ b. tora, o Yanis elpizi na figi i Maria avrio Now the.nom John.nom hope.3sg.pres na leave.3sg.pres the.nom Mary.nom tomorrow ‘Now, John hopes that Mary will leave tomorrow’ Here there is both a “hoping” event AND a “leaving” event (30) In short, we have +T with +Agr associated with necessary Obligatory Control. But this is precisely what is predicted NOT to occur by, for example, Landau (2004). For Landau, the feature combination [+T] and [+Agr] requires [+R], which in turn yields the possibility of Non-obligatory control. Necessary Obligatory Control should arise only when one or the other of [T] and [Agr] features has a minus specification. (31) Other verbs that pattern in this way, i.e. that take a thematic object and a subjunctive na clause, and the na clause is event/temporally “independent” of the matrix but shows OC include: epitrepo ('allow'), afino ('let'), ipochreono ('oblige'), diatazo ('order'), vazo ('put'), simvulevo ('advise'), apotrepo (‘dissuade’). 4. EXPLANATION BY DEDUCTION; AGREEMENT BY DEGREES (32) The central axioms of eliminative minimalism include: a. Ineliminable lexical features/properties b. Structure building device (Merge, which means there's a derivation), and c. Interaction with external systems: thus, there are operations (Agree) to eliminate uninterpretable features; operations produce objects legible to the interfaces (and operations do so efficiently). (33) Given our mode of explanation, our research question(s) become: To what extent can we deduce the stipulated principles of the GB analysis of na clauses? In other words, what is the least we can say beyond (32) and still have the greater empirical coverage that the problematic cases we introduced above require? (34) As we mentioned in the introduction, our central proposal (in its simplest form) is this: Verbs select a phi-defective or else a phi-complete T (in their complement) This (currently) is an irreducible lexical property. We are shifting focus from tense to agreement (at least for the data considered). (35) This does the “right” work for us when combined with the following, independently motivated Minimalist proposals. (36) The framework: (i) The operation Agree (the probe-goal analysis of Chomsky's recent work). The basic idea is that uninterpretable features (e.g., phi features on T, the EPP feature, and Case features) are valued, and then spelled-out, via the operation Agree. (ii) The construal-as-movement analysis of Hornstein. The basic idea: The lexical element PRO is eliminated, replaced in effect, by NP “trace”; and the principles associated with OC (for example, “subject vs. object” control) are eliminated, replaced, in effect, by independently motivated locality constraints on feature-driven movement. Furthermore, we assume that pro is just like other NPs; specifically, it needs Case feature checked. (iii) The derivational approach to syntactic relations (Epstein (1999), Epstein et al (1998), Epstein & Seely (1999, 2002, and forthcoming). Two features of this approach are important for present concerns: (a) derivations proceed in a strictly bottom up fashion, and (b) relations are not defined on already built up trees but rather are deduced from the fundamental structure building operation (i.e. Merge) itself. (37) Now, what is the least we can say beyond this? We'll argue that: (i) Only a phi-complete T may check Case of NP. (modified from Chomsky) (ii) We introduce “degrees of agreement”. The basic idea is that an element that is overtly specified for less than the full set of phi features may or may not be phi-complete abstractly. Traditionally, it’s been assumed that any overt morphology indicates the presence of +Agr abstractly (see Pires, for instance, on inflected infinitive in Portuguese). What we are proposing is a more refined interpretation of this. Only the overt presence of an individual phi feature indicates abstract presence of that feature. For instance, if person and number, but not gender are overtly realized, then abstractly Agr may still be defective (lacking abstract gender). (38) Consider first a NOC “structure”: o Yanis elpizi na kolimbai the.nom John.nom hope.3sg.pres na swim.3sg.pres ‘John hopes to swim’ We argue that in such cases, the matrix predicate selects a phi-complete T. This gives us NOC properties. a. pro + kolimbai Merge, theta checking b. Tc + [pro kolimbai] Merge, selection Tc = phi complete T c. pro + [Tc pro kolimbai] Agree (Tc & pro) = phi (of Tc) + Case (of pro) checking d. elpizi + [pro Tc pro kolimbai] Merge, theta checking, selection e. o Yanis + [elpizi pro Tc pro kolimbai] Merge, theta checking f. Tc + [ o Yanis elpizi pro Tc pro kolimbai] Merge, selection g. o Yanis + [Tc o Yanis elpizi pro Tc pro kolimbai] Agree (Tc & o Yanis) (39) Since hope selects phi complete T (Tc), we get NOC properties. a. Why get overt subject in na clause. Tc checks Nom Case. b. Why, if empty, subject of na clause can have deictic reference; non c-commanding antecedent; can have “split” antecedents. Since empty subject is pro. c. Sloppy & strict reading. Since it's pro. (40) Consider next an OC “structure”: o Yanis kseri na kolimbai the.nom John.nom know.3sg.pres na swim.3sg.pres ‘John knows how to swim’ (41) We assume that this matrix predicate selects phi-defective T. Recall that under “degrees of agreement” an element can bear some overt morphology but still be phi-defective; in this case we have overt person and number but not gender. In (38), we had exactly the same overt inflection but in that case it was by hypothesis underlyingly phi-complete. (42) Since in (40) embedded T is defective, the OC properties follow. In the spirit of Hornstein, we deduce OC from independently motivated properties of feature-driven “NP movement.” NOTE: in some case, our “deductions” below are different than Hornstein's: a. Why no overt subject? With overt subject, there's no convergence since no Case; no Case since lower T is defective: * o Yanis kseri na kolimbai i Maria the.nom John.nom know.3sg.pres na swim.3sg.pres the.nom Mary.nom *‘John knows how Mary to swim’ Control in Greek: It’s another good moveKonstantia Kapetangianni, University of MichiganDaniel Seely, Eastern Michigan University (16) Single event: Na-clauses that intuitively do not denote an event separate from the event of the main clause do not support past tense nor matrix-independent temporal adverbial: a. * o Yanis kseri na kolimbise the.nom John.nom know.3sg.pres na swim.3sg.past *‘John knows swam’ b. * tora, o Yanis kseri na kolimbai avrio Now the.nom Johni.nom know.3sg.pres na eci / *j swim.3sg.pres tomorrow *‘Now, John knows how to swim tomorrow’ • Here, there is just one event, a “know-how-to-swim” event (17) Control in Modern Greek's next step is to tie this independent property of the different na clauses directly to the distribution of PRO vs pro via case licensing through Hornstein’s (1990) tense sequencing: 3.NA CLAUSES & MINIMALIST METHODOLOGY: THE CHALLENGE (18) The GB analysis reviewed above appeals, crucially so, to: (i) the PRO vs. pro distinction (ii) the idea that V raising to C “licenses” Nominative Case (iii) the claim that V to C raising is triggered by the “presence” of multiple events (19) We argue that each of these is problematic. 3.1PRO vs pro (20) The PRO of classic GB is arguably LF uninterpretable: PRO’s being [+anaphoric] and [+pronominal] entails that it is simultaneously and contradictorily “semantically dependent” & “semantically independent.” (21) Control in Modern Greek adopts the idea that PRO is actually an empty anaphor. But there are still problems: • As Landau (2002) notes: it's a pure stipulation that anaphoric PRO can't be Case marked, but pronominal pro must be Case marked. To claim: “It's an anaphor and thus cannot be Case marked; but it's a pronoun and thus must be Case marked” doesn't follow. (A similar criticism has been leveled against the “null case checking” analysis of Chomsky and Lasnik (1993)). The difference is not deduced. b. Furthermore, as Hornstein (2001) notes: it's a stipulation that anaphoric PRO has OC properties. It's not clear, for example, why PRO (or other anaphors) must have a c-commanding antecedent, why it only allows the sloppy reading under ellipsis, etc. The difference is not deduced. 3.2 V raising to C “licenses” Nominative Case: an operation is assigning a feature? (22) A problem is that such “licensing” may not be implementable, at least not in any natural way. Case checking is relational. X (a Case bearer) assigns/checks the Case of Y (Case “receiver”). But surely V movement doesn't license Case; i.e. the actual movement doesn't check Nom case since an operation is not a licit member of the Case checking relation. 3.3 Temporal independence does not always correlate with Non Obligatory Control Consider: (23)o Yanis entharini ti Maria na erthi sto parti the.nom John.nom encourage.3sg.pres the.acc Maria.acc na come.3sg.pres to-the party ‘John encourages Mary to come to the party’ • Here, we clearly have multiple events. Multiple events is evidenced by independent temporal adverbials: (24)hthes o Yanis entharine ti Maria na erthi avrio sto parti yesterday the.nom John.nom encourage.3sg.past the.acc Maria.acc na come.3sg.pres tomorrow to-the party ‘Yesterday, John encouraged Mary to come to the party tomorrow’ (25)Following through the series of hypothetical syllogisms of the classic GB analysis, we predict: if multiple events then pro, NOT PRO, and, therefore, we expect NOC. (26) BUT, this prediction is FALSE: critically, we do not get overt subject. In fact, we get OBLIGATORY CONTROL properties! (27) * hthes o Yanis entharine ti Maria na erthi o Kostas avrio sto parti yesterday the.nom John.nom encourage.3sg.past the.acc Mary.acc na come.3sg.pres the.nom Kostas.nom tomorrow to-the party *‘Yesterday, John encouraged Mary that Kostas come to the party tomorrow’ CrucialNote: no overt subject possible. Null subject is licensed but shows OC properties, i.e., it must have c-commanding antecedent, only sloppy reading, etc. (28) We stress that the argument above is a potential problem for any analysis that ties NON OBLIGATORY CONTROL to temporal independence; i.e. it is perhaps false that: If the inflected [+Agr] embedded clause is temporally independent (= takes “own” tense and/or “own” temporal adverbial) [+T], then that embedded clause will display non-OC properties. (29) In our case above, the inflected na clause is temporally matrix-independent, but it is Obligatory Control Properties that we find. b. Why must there be “antecedent.” It's movement. It's not that the empty element in the subject of the na clause must have an antecedent. Rather, no DP can occupy the subject position and be convergent/any DP must move out. (cf. Hornstein (2001) who gets this in chain-theoretic terms). c. Why must empty subject of na clause have c-commanding “antecedent.” Epstein's deduction of the PBC: adapted to present case; the matrix verb, by virtue of its theta features, attracts “subject” of na clause up. (alternatively, matrix v attracts subject up via its phi features; and happens to “assign” it a theta role. [We could adopt the chain-theoretic account of Hornstein (2001): NP-movement creates A-chain; and must have c-command between members of such a chain. However, we will take the radically different approach required by the derivational theory of syntactic relations. d. Why no split antecedents? Can't first Merge more than one DP into the same “position.” e. Why sloppy reading only? Just as in Hornstein. John knows John to leave and Mary does know Mary to leave John knows John to leave and *Mary does know John to leave ^_____________________________| (43) To summarize NP verb [na Tdef verb ...] NP verb [ na Tc verb] OC NOC • We're not appealing in direct way to event structure, nor to notions of “independent temporal domain.” That's not to say that there aren't certain correlations: if verb takes indicative then also Tc. We are saying that in Greek if verb takes subjunctive, then it may select phi defective OR complete T. (44) In this way, we have solution to the problems raised earlier: (45) First, we don't have problem with PRO vs. pro; i.e. we don't require the stipulation “PRO cannot be Case checked, but pro must be Case checked.” In principle, we can treat all NPs alike (= NPs have LF uninterpretable Case feature that must be “checked.”) (46) Furthermore, there's no question of V to C "licensing" Nom Case. Rather, Case is uniformly checked under probe-goal. (47) Finally, since we're not appealing (directly) to event structure nor to temporal domain properties, we have no problem with the examples that are troublesome to earlier accounts: o Yanis entharine ti Maria na erthi sto parti the.nom John.nom encourage.3sg.past the.acc Mary.acc na come.3sg.pres to the party ‘John encouraged Mary to come to the party’ Recall that this represents a potential problem for Control in Modern Greek since the na clause encodes an independent event (and this na clause is temporally independent), and yet we get OC, not the predicted NOC. (48) We argue that encourage selects phi defective T. Thus, it's OC and not NOC (no overt subject is licensed here) straightforwardly. (49) SUMMARY We've argued that, when embedded within a reductivist framework, we can account for the properties of na clauses by appealing to an irreducible lexical property and to our notion of “degrees of agreement”. Not only do we account for the NOC vs. OC distinction in na clauses with no added technicalia, but in fact, we have greater empirical coverage since we can account for the cases troublesome to previous analyses. So we can claim some explanatory and descriptive “success.” • IDEAS AND IMPLICATIONS OF AGREEMENT BY DEGREES (50) Pires (2001) pursues the construal-as-movement approach relative to inflected infinitives in Portuguese, arguing that: inflected infinitives = phi complete = NOC non-inflected infinitives = phi incomplete = OC • For Pires: If there's overt inflection, then T is complete. If there's no overt inflection, then T is defective. (51) Greek seems different, however. In Greek we find: If we “see” the overt inflection (in the na clause), then T is complete OR defective. So, we suggest that the question is not “is there overt inflection or not” but rather “to what degree is there overt inflection.” In Greek, there's overt inflection for person and number, but not gender. Thus, the overt inflection is “two out of three phi features,” or “partial” overt agreement. (52) T defective can check Nom of Adjective/modifer? Or, argument for chains? o Yanis kseri na ine harumenos the.nom John.nom know.3sg.pres na be.3sg.pres happy.sg.masc.nom ‘John knows (how) to be happy’ (example modeled after Philippaki-Warburton & Catsimali, 1999) • Tentative proposal: phi defective T can't check Nom of an NP, but can check the Nom of an adjective/nominal modifier. • Note that for Philippaki-Warburton & Catsimali (1999) nominative case is assigned internal to the na clause in (52), but what is left unexplained is why an overt DP is not licensed in the subject position. (cf. Landau 2004 for an interesting alternative analysis). (53) Subject vs. object control: how derive it? (54) Partial control; “split” control? See Landau (2000, 2004) for important discussion. o Yanis epise ti Maria na pane sto parti the.nom John.nom persuade.3sg.past the.acc Mary.acc na go.3pl.pres to-the party ‘John persuaded Mary [John+Mary] to go to the party’ (Split Control) ?‘John persuaded Mary [Mary + unspecified to go] to go to the party’ (Partial Control) (55) CONCLUSION: This paper is (an attempted) exercise in explanation by deduction relative to na clauses in Greek. We've suggested that the standardly noted properties of OC vs. NOC na clauses, along with a range of (unnoticed) properties problematic to previous accounts, can be “explained” within a reductivist minimalist framework. We started with the question: what is the least we can say? We've answered that we can go a surprisingly long way with just this: phi defective T is sometimes selected. We suggested that this gives us explanatory depth, and wider empirical coverage, and has potentially interesting implications beyond.