Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

5.2.1.3.The implied subject PRO in om + te-infinitivals

quickinfo

This section is concerned with the implied PRO-subject in argumental om + te-infinitivals. We will begin in Subsection I with a more general discussion of the motivation to postulate a phonetically empty subject in (a specific subset) of infinitival clauses, subsection II continues by showing that the implied PRO-subject must be assigned a thematic role, just like any other nominal subject, subsection III concludes with a comprehensive discussion of the interpretation of the implied PRO-subject. The main topic in this discussion is the question as to whether subject/object control in examples like (370a&b) should be considered a locally restricted syntactic dependency. Our conclusion will be that this is not the case and that the factors determining the interpretation of the PRO-subject are instead determined by our knowledge of the world; cf. Van Haaften (1991:ch.4).

370

a.	Jani	beloofde	Mariej	[(om) PROi/*j	dat boek	te lezen].	subject control
	Jan	promised	Marie	comp	that book	to read
	'Jan promised Marie to read that book.'

b.	Jani	verzocht	Mariej	[(om) PROj/*i	dat boek	te lezen].	object control
	Jan	asked	Marie	comp	that book	to read
	'Jan asked Marie to read that book.'

c.	Jan keurt	het	af	[(om) PROarb	te vloeken].	generic interpretation
	Jan disapproves	it	prt.	comp	to curse
	'Jan disapproves of cursing.'

I. Why assume a phonetically empty PRO-subject?
II. Semantic restrictions on the implied PRO-subject and its controller
III. Control of the implied PRO-subject

[+] I. Why assume a phonetically empty PRO-subject?

Finite and infinitival object clauses like those in (371) differ in that the former have an overtly expressed subject (here the pronoun hij'he'), whereas the latter have a semantically implied subject. That the subject is semantically implied is clear from the fact that the two examples express the same number of thematic relations; in the two examples the matrix main verb beloven takes three arguments, the subject Jan, the direct object clause and the indirect object Peter, and the main verb lachen in the embedded clause takes one argument, which is expressed by the subject pronoun hij in the finite but remains unexpressed in the infinitival clause. This subsection shows that there are reasons for assuming that the semantically implied subject is actually syntactically present in the form of a phonetically empty noun phrase PRO; see Koster and May (1982), Paardekooper (1985/1986), Van Haaften (1991), and many others for similar arguments.

371

a.	Jan beloofde	Peter	[dat	hij/*PRO	niet	zou	lachen].
	Jan promised	Peter	that	he	not	would	laugh
	'Jan promised Peter that he wouldnʼt laugh.'

b.	Jan beloofde	Peter	[(om) PRO/*hij	niet	te zullen	lachen].
	Jan promised	Peter	comp	not	to will	laugh
	'Jan promised Peter not to laugh.'

We begin by showing that the postulated subject PRO in (371b) has specific interpretative properties; it is just like the pronoun hij'he' in (371a) in that it can be interpreted as coreferential with the subject, but not with the object of the matrix clause; we have made the interpretative restriction explicit in (372a) by means of indices. Example (372b) shows that these interpretational restrictions on PRO are not rigid, but depend on the matrix verb used: while the verb beloven'to promise' in (372a) triggers a so-called subject control reading, the verb verzoeken'to request' triggers an object control reading.

372

a.	Jani	beloofde	Peterj	[(om) PROi/*j	niet	te lachen].	subject control
	Jan	promised	Peter	comp	not	to laugh
	'Jan promised Peter not to laugh.'

b.	Jani	verzocht	Peterj	[(om) PROj/*i	niet	te lachen].	object control
	Jan	requested	Peter	comp	not	to laugh
	'Jan asked Peter not to laugh.'

As such, the interpretational restrictions do not seem to require the postulation of a syntactic element PRO, as we may simply account for these facts by attributing them to the semantics of the two verbs involved, which seems inevitable anyway. The postulation of PRO does help, however, to solve another problem concerning the interpretation of referential and reflexive personal pronouns. First consider the examples in (373) that show that referential pronouns like hem and reflexive pronouns like zichzelf are normally in complementary distribution; whereas the reflexive zichzelf must be bound by (= interpreted as coreferential with) the subject of its own clause, the referential pronoun hem cannot, and while the referential pronoun can (optionally) be bound by some element external to its own clause, the reflexive cannot.

373

a.	Jani	vermoedt	[dat	Peterj	over zichzelfj/*i	praat].
	Jan	suspects	that	Peter	about himself	talks
	'Jan suspects that Peter is talking about himself.'

b.	Jani	vermoedt	[dat Peterj	over hemi/*j	praat].
	Jan	suspects	that Peter	about him	talks
	'Jan suspects that Peter is talking about him.'

All of this was extensively discussed in Section N5.2.1.5, where it was accounted for by assuming that reflexives must be bound in a specific local anaphoric domain, while referential pronouns must be free (= not bound) in that domain. We repeat the two relevant binding conditions in (374), and refer to N5.2.1.5, sub III, for a more detailed and more careful discussion of the notions of binding and local domain; it suffices for our present purposes to simply state that in examples such as (373) the relevant local domain is the embedded clause.

374

Reflexive and reciprocal personal pronouns are bound in their local domain.

Referential personal pronouns are free (= not bound) in their local domain.

Now consider the examples in (375). Although the referential and the reflexive personal pronoun are in complementary distribution in these examples, the conditions in (374) seem to be violated: if we assume that the entire sentence is the local domain of the pronouns, the binding of the referential pronoun in example (375b) would violate condition (374b); alternatively, if the infinitival clause is assumed to be the local domain, the binding of the reflexive in example (375a) would violate condition (374a).

375

a.	Jani	beloofde	Peterj	(om)	over zichzelfi/*hemi	te praten.
	Jan	promised	Peter	comp	about himself/him	to talk
	'Jan promised Peter to talk about himself.'

b.	Jani	beloofde	Peterj	(om)	over hemj/*zichzelfj	te praten.
	Jan	promised	Peter	comp	about him/himself	to talk
	'Jan promised Peter to talk about him.'

Now, also consider the examples in (376). Assuming that the examples in (375) and (376) have the same syntactic structure, they go against the otherwise robust generalization that referential and reflexive pronouns are normally in complementary distribution: The (a)-examples show that, depending on the matrix verb, the reflexive can in principle be bound by the subject or the object of the matrix verb, and the (b)-examples show that the same thing holds for the pronoun.

376

a.	Jani	verzocht	Peterj	(om)	over zichzelfj/*hemj	te praten.
	Jan	requested	Peter	comp	about himself/him	to talk
	'Jan requested Peter to talk about himself.'

b.	Jani	verzocht	Peterj	(om)	over hemi/*zichzelfi	te praten.
	Jan	requested	Peter	comp	about him/himself	to talk
	'Jan requested Peter to talk about him.'

The advantage of postulating the implied subject PRO is that it solves the two problems discussed above and enables us to maintain the two conditions in (374) with no further ado. Consider the structures that should be assigned to the examples in (375), given in (377). Since the verb beloven'to promise' triggers subject control, the implied subject PRO must be coindexed with the matrix subject Jan. As a result, the reflexive pronoun zichzelf in (377a) is bound and the referential pronoun hem in (377b) is free in its infinitival clause.

377

a.	Jani	beloofde	Peterj [local domain	(om) PROi	over zichzelfi/*hemi	te praten].
	Jan	promised	Peter	comp	about himself/him	to talk
	'Jan promised Peter to talk about himself.'

b.	Jani	beloofde	Peterj [local domain	(om) PROi	over hemj/*zichzelfj	te praten].
	Jan	promised	Peter	comp	about him/himself	to talk
	'Jan promised Peter to talk about him.'

If we conclude from this that infinitival clauses are just like finite clauses in that they constitute a local domain for the pronouns they contain, all facts will follow. First, the subject of the matrix clause must be interpreted as coreferential with the reflexive pronoun, whereas the indirect object cannot. If the reflexive pronoun is interpreted as coreferential with the subject of the matrix clause, it will also be correctly bound in its local domain by the implied subject PRO; however, if it is bound by the indirect object of the matrix clause, it would be incorrectly free in its local domain. Second, the referential pronoun can be interpreted as coreferential with the indirect object but not with the subject of the clause: if the pronoun is interpreted by the indirect object, it is still free in its local domain, as required, but if it is coreferential with the subject, it will also be incorrectly bound by the implied subject PRO within its local domain.
Next, consider the structures in (378) that should be assigned to the examples in (376). Since the verb verzoeken'to request' triggers object control, the implied subject PRO must be coindexed with the indirect object Peter of the matrix clause.

378

a.	Jani	verzocht	Peterj [local domain	(om) PROj	over zichzelfj/*hemj	te praten].
	Jan	requested	Peter	comp	about himself/him	to talk
	'Jan requested Peter to talk about himself.'

b.	Jani	verzocht	Peterj [local domain	(om) PROj	over hemi/*zichzelfi	te praten].
	Jan	requested	Peter	comp	about him/himself	to talk
	'Jan requested Peter to talk about him.'

If we maintain the earlier conclusion that the infinitival clause constitutes a local domain for the pronouns it contains, the facts again follow. First, the indirect object of the matrix clause must be interpreted as coreferential with the reflexive pronoun, whereas the subject cannot. If the reflexive pronoun is interpreted as coreferential with the indirect object, it will also be correctly bound in its local domain by the implied subject PRO; however, if it is bound by the subject, it would be incorrectly free in its local domain. Second, the referential pronoun can be interpreted as coreferential with the subject but not with the indirect object of the matrix clause: if the pronoun is interpreted as coreferential with the subject, it is still free in its local domain, as required, but if it is coreferential with the indirect object, it will also be incorrectly bound by the implied subject PRO within its local domain.
A similar argument can be based on the behavior of the reciprocal personal pronoun elkaar'each other', which is subject to the same binding condition as reflexive pronouns. In addition, the reciprocal is bound by a plural antecedent: see the contrast between Jan en Marie groetten elkaar'Jan and Marie greeted each other' and *Jan groette elkaar'*Jan greeted each other'. For our present purpose it is also important to note that the plurality requirement cannot be evaded by assuming that the reciprocal takes a "split" antecedent; an example such as (379a) is unacceptable and the intended assertion can only be expressed by the more complex construction in (379b), in which elkaar does have a plural antecedent.

379

a.	*	Jani	stelt	Peterj	aan elkaari&j	voor.
		Jan	introduces	Peter	to each.other	prt.

b.	[Jan en Peter]i	stellen	zichi	aan elkaari	voor.
	Jan and Peter	introduce	refl	to each.other	prt.
	'Jan and Peter introduce themselves to each other.'

The crucial observation is that the ban on split antecedents seemingly breaks down exactly in those cases in which the implied subject PRO is able to take a split antecedent. The verb voorstellen'to propose' in (380a), for example, does allow an interpretation according to which Jan proposes that Marie and he himself will build a tree house; this reading can be forced by adding the modifier samen'together'. Example (380b) shows that the verb voorstellen ostensibly forces a split-antecedent reading on the reciprocal. However, given that the true antecedent is the implied subject PRO of the infinitival clause, this should not be seen as a violation of the ban on split antecedents for reciprocals.

380

a.	Jani stelde	Elsj	voor	[(om) PROi&j	(samen)	een boomhut	te bouwen].
	Jan proposed	Els	prt.	comp	together	a tree.house	to build
	'Jan proposed to Els to build a tree house together.'

b.	Jani stelde	Elsj	voor	[(om) PROi&j	elkaari&j	te helpen].
	Jan proposed	Els	prt.	comp	each.other	to help
	'Jan proposed to Els to help each other.'

To sum up, this subsection has shown that the postulation of an implicit PRO-subject in infinitival clauses is motivated by the fact that it enables us to maintain in full force a number of robust generalizations concerning binding of referential, reflexive and reciprocal personal pronouns. Without the postulation of PRO the formulation of a descriptive generalization concerning the distribution of these pronouns will become much more complex or even require special stipulations to handle cases of the kind discussed in this section.

[+] II. Semantic restrictions on the implied PRO-subject and its controller

The claim in Subsection I that the PRO-subject of the infinitival clause is semantically implied is tantamount to stating that it is assigned a thematic role by the infinitival verb. The examples in (381a-d) show that this thematic role can be agent if the infinitive is an (in)transitive, theme if the infinitive is an unaccusative, and goal if the infinitive is an undative verb. The implied subject PRO can also be the subject (external argument) of a complementive like aardig'kind' in (381e).

381

a.	Jani	probeert	[(om) PROi	te slapen].	agent
	Jan	tries	comp	to sleep
	'Jan is trying to sleep.'

b.	Jani	probeert	[(om) PROi	Marie	te helpen].	agent
	Jan	tries	comp	Marie	to help
	'Jan is trying to help Marie.'

c.	Jani	probeert	[(om) PROi	niet	te vallen].	theme
	Jan	tries	comp	not	to fall
	'Jan is trying not to fall.'

d.	Jani	probeert	[(om) PROi	het boek voor niets	te krijgen].	goal
	Jan	tries	comp	the book for free	to get
	'Jan is trying to get the book for free.'

e.	Jani	probeert	[(om) PROi	aardig	te zijn].	subject of complementive
	Jan	tries	comp	kind	to be
	'Jan is trying to be kind.'

Of course, there are a number of additional conditions that must be satisfied due to the semantic properties of the matrix verb. For example, the verb proberen'to try' implies that the PRO-subject is able to control or at least consciously affect the eventuality expressed by the infinitival argument clause. For this reason, sentences such as (382) are unacceptable or minimally trigger a stage context reading, that is, a context in which the event denoted by the verb is intentional (like falling in a training session) or involves pretense (like dying in a stage play).

382

a.	$	Jani	probeert	[(om) PROi	te vallen].	theme
		Jan	tries	comp	to fall
		'Jan is trying to fall.'

b.	$	Jani	probeert	[(om) PROi	te sterven].	theme
		Jan	tries	comp	to die
		'Jan is trying to die.'

Furthermore, the controller of PRO should ideally be able to perform the eventuality denoted by the infinitival construction. The subject of the matrix clause in examples such as (383), for example, should not only satisfy the selection restrictions of the matrix verb proberen'to try', but also those of the infinitival verb—it cannot refer to a single individual as this would not satisfy the selection restriction imposed by the infinitival verbs zich verspreiden'to spread' and omsingelen'to surround' that their subjects refer to larger sets of individuals (if headed by a count noun).

383

a.	De soldateni	proberen	[(om) PROi	zich	te verspreiden].
	the soldiers	try	comp	refl	to spread
	'The soldiers are trying to disperse.'

a'.	$	De soldaati	probeert	[(om) PROi	zich	te verspreiden].
		the soldier	tries	comp	refl	to spread

b.	De soldateni	proberen	[(om) PROi	het gebouw	te omsingelen].
	the soldiers	try	comp	the building	to surround
	'The soldiers are trying to surround the building.'

b'.	$	De soldaati	probeert	[(om) PROi	het gebouw	te omsingelen].
		the soldier	tries	comp	the building	to surround

The fact established earlier that the implied PRO-subject may be assigned the thematic role of theme predicts that om + te-infinitivals can be passivized. Sentences of this form do not seem to be very frequent and are perhaps slightly formal, but an example such as (384b) shows that this prediction is indeed correct.

384

a.		Marie werd	gekozen	tot voorzitter.
		Marie was	elected	as chairman

b.	Marie	probeerde	[(om) PROi	gekozen	te worden	tot voorzitter].
	Marie	tried	comp	chosen	to be	as chairman
	'Mary tried to be elected Chair.'

It is important to note that although impersonal passivization is fully acceptable in Dutch, this is never possible with infinitival clauses. The contrast between (385a) and (385b) suggests that infinitival clauses differ from finite clauses in that they cannot be impersonal but must have a PRO-subject. Of course, one might want to explore the possibility that there is a PRO-subject in (385b) with a thematic role similar to that of the expletive er in (385a) and claim that the unacceptability of (385b) is due to the fact that subject control would lead to an incoherent interpretation with Marie functioning as the subject of the impersonal passive. However, this would lead us to expect impersonal passivization of the matrix clause to improve the acceptability of the utterance, and example (385c) shows that this is not borne out. We therefore conclude that om + te-infinitivals must have a PRO-subject and that (385b) is unacceptable because it fails to meet this condition.

385

a.	Er	werd	gelachen	in de zaal.
	there	was	laughed	in the hall
	'There was laughter in the hall.'

b.	*	Mariei	probeerde	[(om)	gelachen	te worden].
		Marie	tried	comp	laughed	to be

c.	*	Er	werd	geprobeerd	[(om)	gelachen	te worden].
		there	was	tried	comp	laughed	to be

[+] III. Control of the implied PRO-subject

The implied PRO-subjects of argumental om + te-infinitivals are normally controlled by the subject or the object of the verbs selecting them, although there are cases in which the PRO-subject takes a split antecedent or receives a generic interpretation. One of the important questions in this subsection is whether these cases should be considered as instances of so-called obligatory and non-obligatory control. This question has received a wide variety of answers in the literature depending on the definition of these notions. Our point of departure will be the operational definition in (386), which will be more extensively discussed in Subsection A on the basis of a number of standard English examples.

386

Obligatory control requires the antecedent of PRO to:

be overtly realized in the sentence containing PRO;

be local (a co-argument of the infinitival clause containing PRO);

be a c-commanding nominal argument (subject or object);

be unique (cannot be "split").

Object and subject control are illustrated in example in (387). Such examples are often considered as cases of obligatory control, subsections B and C will investigate these control constructions in more detail and argue that we are dealing with obligatory control in the sense of (386) only in appearance.

387

a.	Jani	beloofde	Elsj	[(om) PROi/*j	dat boek	te lezen].	subject control
	Jan	promised	Els	comp	that book	to read
	'Jan promised Els to read that book.'

b.	Jani	verzocht	Elsj	[(om) PROj/*i	dat boek	te lezen].	object control
	Jan	requested	Els	comp	that book	to read
	'Jan requested Els to read that book.'

According to the definition in (386), the examples in (388) are straightforward cases of non-obligatory control constructions: the PRO-subject in (388a) does not take a unique but a so-called split antecedent, which is constituted by both the subject and the object of the main clause, and in (388b) the antecedent does not have to be overtly realized, in which case PRO receives an arbitrary/generic interpretation. Cases like these will be discussed in Subsection D.

388

a.	Jani	stelde	Elsj	voor	[(om) PROi+j	samen	te werken].	split antecedent
	Jan	proposed	Els	prt.	comp	together	to work
	'Jan proposed to Els to collaborate.'

b.	Jani	keurt	het	af	[(om) PROarb	te vloeken].	arbitrary interpretation
	Jan	disapproves	it	prt.	comp	to curse
	'Jan disapproves of cursing.'

Our conclusion that we are not dealing with obligatory (that is, syntactically regulated) control in the examples in (388) raises the question as to what determines the type of control relation in om + te-infinitivals; this question will be the main topic of Subsection E.
Before we start our discussion, we want to point out that the definition of obligatory control in (386) is not uncontroversial; since the distinction between obligatory and non-obligatory control was introduced in Williams (1980), it has given rise to a great deal of theoretical discussion and individual researchers have drawn the dividing line at different places; Bennis & Hoekstra (1989a), for example, claim that (386a-c) are not decisive for establishing obligatory control (and they in fact claim the same for anaphor binding but their judgments leading to this conclusion are not shared by all speakers; cf. Van Haaften 1991 and Petter 1998).
We also wish to point out that the extensive lists of control verbs (that is, verbs taking an infinitival complement with a PRO-subject) in the following discussion are based on those found in Van Haaften (1991) and Petter (1998), but adapted to the classification of verbs in Table 1, which was proposed in Section 1.2.2, sub II, and Chapter 2.

Table 1: Classification of verbs according to the type of nominal arguments they take

	name used in this grammar	external argument	internal argument(s)
no internal argument	intransitive: snurken'to snore'	nominative (agent)	—
	impersonal: sneeuwen 'to snow'	—	—
one internal argument	transitive: kopen'to buy'	nominative (agent)	accusative (theme)
	unaccusative; arriveren'to arrive'	—	nominative (theme)
two internal arguments	ditransitive: aanbieden'to offer'	nominative (agent)	dative (goal) accusative (theme)
	nom-dat: bevallen'to please'	—	dative (experiencer) nominative (theme)
	undative: krijgen'to get'	—	nominative (goal) accusative (theme)

[+] A. Obligatory versus non-obligatory control

Obligatory control is normally assigned an operational definition; in order to be able to speak of obligatory control, the antecedent of PRO must at least satisfy the four restrictions in (386), repeated here as (389).

389

be overtly realized in the sentence containing PRO;

be local (a co-argument of the infinitival clause containing PRO);

be a c-commanding nominal argument (subject or object);

be unique (cannot be "split").

These properties of obligatory control will be illustrated by means of the English examples in (390) to (392). The examples in (390) show that the antecedent must be overtly realized in the sentence containing PRO; cf. Bresnan (1982) and Manzini (1983). Example (390a') shows that passivization, and the concomitant demotion of the subject, is impossible in subject control constructions, while example (390b'') indicates that omission of the nominal object is impossible in object control structures. We use the index "?" to indicate that this is due to there being no suitable controller available in the syntactic structure.

390

Johni promised Billj [PROi/*j to shave himselfi].

subject control

a'.

Billj was promised [PRO? to shave himself?].

a''.

Johni promised [PROi to shave himself].

Johni asked Billj [PROj/*i to shave himselfj].

object control

b'.

Billj was asked [PROj to shave himself].

b''.

Johni asked [PRO? to shave himself?].

That the antecedent of PRO must be a co-argument of the infinitival clause containing PRO can be illustrated by means of the examples in (391), which show that the unacceptable examples in (390) cannot be saved by embedding them in a larger sentence that does have a potential antecedent of PRO; since the antecedent must be within the clause headed by the subject/object control verbs to promise and to ask, the subjects of the main clauses headed by to think cannot function as such.

391

Johni thinks [that Billj was promised [PROi to shave himselfi]].

Billj thinks [that Johni asked [PROj to shave himselfj]].

That the antecedent of PRO must be a c-commanding nominal argument (subject or indirect object) is clear from the fact that the passive counterpart of (390a') does not improve when we add an agentive by-phrase: *Billj was promised by Johni [PROi to shave himselfi] is unacceptable because the antecedent of PRO is not a nominal argument of the matrix verb but part of the adverbial agentive by-phrase. Finally, the unacceptability of the examples in (392) shows that the antecedent of PRO must be unique in the sense that PRO cannot have a split antecedent.

392

Johni promised Billj [PROi+j to leave together].

Johni asked Billj [PROi+j to leave together].

It is normally assumed that obligatory control requires all four restrictions to be satisfied. The theoretical motivation is that obligatory control is comparable to binding of reflexive pronouns and NP-movement to subject position in passive, unaccusative and raising constructions. All of these exhibit properties of locally restricted syntactic dependencies are characterized by being obligatory (which derives property (389a)), local (which derives property (389b)), involve c-command (which derives property (389c)), and unique (which derives property (389d)); see Koster (1984a/1984b) for a more extensive discussion. Consequently, it is sufficient to show for just one of the restrictions in (389) that it does not hold in order to establish that we are dealing with non-obligatory control.

[+] B. Subject Control

By definition, subject control verbs must be minimally dyadic: they must have an infinitival argument clause as well as a subject that functions as the antecedent of the implied PRO-subject. This is consistent with the fact that subject control verbs are normally transitive or ditransitive verbs, or verbs taking a prepositional object clause. In (393), we give a small sample of transitive subject control verbs.

393

Transitive verbs: aandurven'to dare', aankunnen'to be up to', afzweren'to renounce', begeren'to desire', beogen'to aim at', bestaan'to have the nerve', doorzetten'to go ahead with', leren'to learn', durven'to dare', pogen'to try', nalaten'to refrain', ontwennen'to break oneʼs habit', overwegen'to consider', proberen'to try', popelen'to be eager', pretenderen'to pretend', schuwen'to shun', trachten'to try', vermijden'to avoid', verzuimen'to fail', wagen'to dare', weigeren'to refuse', uitproberen'to test', uitstellen'to postpone', verafschuwen'to abhor', verdienen to deserve', verdragen'to endure', verdommen'to flatly refuse', vergeten'to forget', verleren'to lose the hang of', vermijden'to avoid', vertikken'to refuse', verzaken/verzuimen'to neglect oneʼs duty', wagen'to dare', weigeren'to refuse'Transitive verbs: aandurven'to dare', aankunnen'to be up to', afzweren'to renounce', begeren'to desire', beogen'to aim at', bestaan'to have the nerve', doorzetten'to go ahead with', leren'to learn', durven'to dare', pogen'to try', nalaten'to refrain', ontwennen'to break oneʼs habit', overwegen'to consider', proberen'to try', popelen'to be eager', pretenderen'to pretend', schuwen'to shun', trachten'to try', vermijden'to avoid', verzuimen'to fail', wagen'to dare', weigeren'to refuse', uitproberen'to test', uitstellen'to postpone', verafschuwen'to abhor', verdienen to deserve', verdragen'to endure', verdommen'to flatly refuse', vergeten'to forget', verleren'to lose the hang of', vermijden'to avoid', vertikken'to refuse', verzaken/verzuimen'to neglect oneʼs duty', wagen'to dare', weigeren'to refuse'

In (394), we provide two concrete examples. Note that they may contain the anticipatory pronoun het'it' introducing the infinitival object clause. This pronoun is normally optional but some verbs in (393) require it to be present; this holds especially for particle verbs like aandurven'to dare' and afzweren'to renounce', and some of the verbs prefixed with be- ( bestaan'to have the nerve'), ont- ( ontwennen'to break oneʼs habit'), and ver- ( vertikken'to refuse', verleren'to lose the hang of'). At first sight, the primeless examples in (394) seem to be good candidates for obligatory control constructions: the antecedent of PRO is local, a nominal argument (subject) and unique. However, it turns out that the antecedent is not obligatory: the primed examples show that examples such as (394) can readily be passivized.

394

a.	Jani	probeert	(het)	[(om) PROi	Marie	te bereiken].
	Jan	tries	it	comp	Marie	to reach
	'Jan tries to contact Marie.'

a'.		Er	werd	geprobeerd	[(om) PROarb	Marie	te bereiken].
		there	was	tried	comp	Marie	to reach

b.	Jani vergat	(het)	[(om) PRO	Marie	in	te lichten].
	Jan forgot	it	comp	Marie	prt.	to inform
	'Jan forgot to inform Marie.'

b'.		Er	is vergeten	[(om) PROarb	Marie	in	te lichten].
		there	is forgotten	comp	Marie	prt.	to inform

Passive examples of the kind in (394) are in fact quite frequent on the internet: A Google search (11/15/2012) on the strings [ er werd/is geprobeerd om'it was/has been tried' and [ er werd/is vergeten om'It was/has been forgotten' resulted in more than one million hits for both cases. The other verbs in (393) seem to allow passivization as well when they take an om + te-infinitival as a direct object. If obligatory control indeed requires that all four properties are met, we have to conclude that the primeless examples in (394) are non-obligatory control constructions.
There are not many ditransitive subject control verbs that may take an om + te-infinitival clause as a direct object. The set given in (395) seems to exhaust the possibilities. Note in passing that this set of subject control verbs can be extended as a result of so-called control shift: we will ignore this issue here but return to it in Subsection E.

395

Ditransitive verbs: aanbieden'to offer', beloven'to promise', toezeggen'to promise'

At first sight, we again seem to be dealing with obligatory control: the antecedent of PRO is local, a nominal argument (subject) and unique. But again it turns out that the antecedent is not obligatory, in the sense that the three verbs in (395) can all be passivized: Our Google search on the strings [ er werd /is * aangeboden om], [ er werd /is * beloofd om] and [ er werd /is * toegezegd om] again resulted in more than one million hits for all cases. The acceptability of passivization, which is illustrated in (396) for aanbieden'to offer' and beloven'to promise', once more shows that we are dealing with non-obligatory control constructions.

396

a.	Mariei	bood	Peterj	aan	[om PROi/*j	hem	te helpen	met zijn huiswerk].
	Marie	offered	Peter	prt.	comp	him	to help	with his homework
	'Marie offered Peter to help him with his homework.'

a'.		Er werd	Peterj	aangeboden	[om PROi/*j	hem	te helpen	met zijn huiswerk].
		there was	Peter	prt.-offered	comp	him	to help	with his homework

b.	Jani	beloofde	Elsj	[(om) PROi/*j	de computer	gebruiksklaar	te maken].
	Jan	promised	Els	comp	the computer	ready.for.use	to make
	'Jan promised Els to make the computer ready for use.'

b'.		Er werd	Elsj	beloofd	[(om) PROarb	de computer	gebruiksklaar te maken].
		there was	Els	promised	comp	the computer	ready.for.use to make

For completeness' sake, we want to note that under specific conditions the verbs in (395) are also compatible with object control; we ignore this for the moment but return to it in Subsection E.
Subject control also occurs with verbs taking a prepositional object. Section 2.3 has shown that such PO-verbs can be intransitive, transitive or unaccusative. A sample of each type is given in (397); like regular ditransitive verbs, ditransitive PO-verbs are not very common as subject control verbs; the only case we have found is dreigen (met)'to threaten' and even this verb is very often (perhaps even normally) used without a nominal object. Note that the infinitival clause can be optionally introduced by an anticipatory pronominal PP; whether this PP is obligatory, optional or preferably left implicit depends on the verb in question and may also vary from person to person; see Section 2.3 for more discussion.

397

Intransitive PO-verbs: aarzelen (over)'to hesitate about', afzien van'to give up', berusten (in)'resign oneself to', besluiten (tot)'to decide', denken (over)'to think about', hopen (op)'to hope for', houden (van)'to love', kiezen (voor)'to opt (for)', oppassen (voor)'to beware of', overhellen (tot)'to incline', piekeren (over)'to fret (about)', smachten (naar)'to yearn (for)', streven (naar)'to strive (after)', verlangen (naar)'to long for'Intransitive PO-verbs: aarzelen (over)'to hesitate about', afzien van'to give up', berusten (in)'resign oneself to', besluiten (tot)'to decide', denken (over)'to think about', hopen (op)'to hope for', houden (van)'to love', kiezen (voor)'to opt (for)', oppassen (voor)'to beware of', overhellen (tot)'to incline', piekeren (over)'to fret (about)', smachten (naar)'to yearn (for)', streven (naar)'to strive (after)', verlangen (naar)'to long for'

Transitive PO-verbs: dreigen (met)'to threaten with'

Unaccusative PO-verbs: afknappen (op)'to get fed up with', ontkomen (aan)'to escape from', openstaan (voor)'to be open for', slagen (in)'to succeed in', toekomen (aan)'to get round to', terugdeinzen'to flinch', terugschrikken (voor)'to recoil', wennen (aan)'to get used to'Unaccusative PO-verbs: afknappen (op)'to get fed up with', ontkomen (aan)'to escape from', openstaan (voor)'to be open for', slagen (in)'to succeed in', toekomen (aan)'to get round to', terugdeinzen'to flinch', terugschrikken (voor)'to recoil', wennen (aan)'to get used to'

The examples in (398) show that intransitive PO-verbs that allow passivization also do so when they take an om + te-infinitival as prepositional object; a Google search on the string [ er wordt/is (naar) gestreefd om] results in numerous relevant hits.

398

a.	Elsi streeft	(ernaar)	[(om) PROi	volgende week	klaar	te zijn].
	Els strives	after.it	comp	next week	ready	to be
	'Els aims at being ready next week.'

b.		Er	wordt	(naar)	gestreefd	[(om) PROarb	volgende week	klaar	te zijn].
		there	is	after	strived	comp	next week	ready	to be

Given that dreigen (met) is the only transitive PO-verb that triggers subject control, it is hard to determine whether such verbs allow passivization, especially since examples such as (399b) are at best marginally acceptable. What we can conclude from this is unclear: since dreigen (met) is normally used without a nominal object, it need not surprise us that it is normally the impersonal variant in (399b') that is used. For want of sufficient evidence, we have to leave the question unresolved as to whether transitive PO-verbs involve obligatory or non-obligatory control.

399

a.	Mariei	dreigt	Janj	(ermee)	[(om) PROi/*j	te vertrekken].
	Marie	threatens	Jan	with.it	comp	to leave
	'Marie is threatening Jan to leave.'

b.	??	Janj	wordt	(ermee)	gedreigd	[(om) PROarb	te vertrekken].
		Jan	is	with it	threatened	comp	to leave

b'.		Er	wordt	(mee)	gedreigd	[(om) PROarb	te vertrekken].
		there	is	with	threatened	comp	to leave

Despite the somewhat unclear status of example (399b), the acceptability of the other passive examples in (394), (396), (398) and (399) unambiguously shows that we are dealing with non-obligatory control constructions. There are of course also a reasonable number of unaccusative subject control verbs, but these do not shed any light on the question as to whether we are dealing with obligatory or non-obligatory control, given that they do not allow passivization anyway. The examples in (400) therefore simply serve to illustrate the use of these verbs.

400

a.	Mariei	is erin	geslaagd	[(om) PROi	de computer	te repareren].
	Marie	is in.it	succeeded	comp	the computer	to repair
	'Marie has managed to repair the computer.'

b.	Jani	is	eraan	gewend	[(om) PROi	veel	te reizen].
	Jan	is	to.it	used	comp	a.lot	to travel
	'Jan is used to frequent traveling.'

It should be noted, however, that Section 2.3.2, sub IV, mentioned a number of potentially unaccusative PO-verbs that are special in allowing passivization. Some of these verbs ( aanvangen/beginnen (met)'to start with', ophouden/stoppen (met)'to stop with', overgaan (tot)'to proceed to') can be used as subject control verbs and then retain their ability to undergo passivization. This shows that subject control structures of the kind discussed here do not involve obligatory control.

401

a.	De gemeentei	is ermee	gestopt	[(om) PROi	papier	in	te zamelen].
	the municipality	is with.it	stopped	comp	paper	prt.	to collect
	'The municipality has stopped collecting waste paper.'

b.	Er	wordt	mee	gestopt	[(om) PROarb	papier	in	te zamelen].
	there	is	with	stopped	comp	paper	prt.	to collect
	'Stopping the collection of waste paper is being considered.'

A final set of verbs that seem to trigger subject control are the inherently reflexive verbs in (402). Such verbs do not shed any light on the question as to whether subject control with verbs taking an om + te-infinitival as complement involve obligatory control given that inherently reflexive verbs never undergo passivization.

402

Inherently reflexive verbs; zich aanwennen'to get used to', zich bedwingen'to restrain', zich beijveren (voor)'to apply oneself to', zich generen (voor)'to feel embarrassed', zich richten (op)'to concentrate oneself on', zich toeleggen (op)'to apply oneself to', zich verzetten (tegen)'to resist', zich veroorloven'to permit', zich verwaardigen (tot)'to deign', zich voornemen'to resolve', zich zetten tot'to put oneʼs mind to'Inherently reflexive verbs; zich aanwennen'to get used to', zich bedwingen'to restrain', zich beijveren (voor)'to apply oneself to', zich generen (voor)'to feel embarrassed', zich richten (op)'to concentrate oneself on', zich toeleggen (op)'to apply oneself to', zich verzetten (tegen)'to resist', zich veroorloven'to permit', zich verwaardigen (tot)'to deign', zich voornemen'to resolve', zich zetten tot'to put oneʼs mind to'

In fact, it is not entirely clear whether we are really dealing with subject control in cases such as this, depending as it does on whether one is willing to assign argument status to the weak reflexive. If so, one might as well assume that the subject control reading is mediated by the reflexive, in which case one might claim that we are dealing with object control in the examples in (403).

403

a.	Jani	veroorlooft	het	zichi	[(om) PROi	tweemaal	op vakantie	te gaan].
	Jan	allows	it	refl	comp	twice	on holiday	to go
	'Jan allows himself to go on holiday twice.'

b.	Jani	geneert	zichi	ervoor	[(om) PROi	over seks	te praten].
	Jan	feels.embarrassed	refl	about.it	comp	about sex	to talk
	'Jan feels embarrassed to talk about sex.'

For completeness' sake, we want to note that undative verbs are not used as subject control verbs for the simple reason that verbs like hebben'to have', krijgen'to get' and houden'to keep' do not take infinitival complements.

[+] C. Object control

Object control verbs must be at least dyadic by definition: they must have an infinitival argument clause as well as an object that functions as the antecedent of the implied PRO-subject. Table 1 shows that object control verbs with an external argument are normally ditransitive, unless they take an additional prepositional object, in which case they can also be transitive; we give a small sample of such object control verbs in (404).

404

Ditransitive verbs: aanbevelen'to recommend', aanleren'to teach', aanraden'to advise', adviseren'to advise', afraden'to advise against', beletten'to prevent', bevelen'to order', gebieden'to order', misgunnen'to envy', ontraden'to advise against', opdragen'to assign', toelaten'to allow', toestaan'to permit', verbieden'to forbid', verhinderen'to prevent', verzoeken/vragen'to request'Ditransitive verbs: aanbevelen'to recommend', aanleren'to teach', aanraden'to advise', adviseren'to advise', afraden'to advise against', beletten'to prevent', bevelen'to order', gebieden'to order', misgunnen'to envy', ontraden'to advise against', opdragen'to assign', toelaten'to allow', toestaan'to permit', verbieden'to forbid', verhinderen'to prevent', verzoeken/vragen'to request'

Transitive PO-verbs: aanmanen/aansporen/aanzetten(tot)'to urge on', activeren (tot)'to activate', belasten (met)'to put in charge of', belemmeren (in)'to impede', dwingen (tot)'to force', helpen (met)'to help with', machtigen (tot)'to authorize', herinneren (aan)'to remind of', ophitsen (tot)'to incite', oproepen (to)'to call upon someone (to)', overhalen (tot)'to persuade', overreden (tot)'to persuade', stimuleren (tot)'to stimulate', stijven (in)'to confirm someone in', uitdagen (tot)'to challenge', uitnodigen (tot)'to invite/ask', verleiden (tot)'to tempt to', verplichten (tot)'to oblige to', waarschuwen (voor)'to alert'Transitive PO-verbs: aanmanen/aansporen/aanzetten (tot)'to urge on', activeren (tot)'to activate', belasten (met)'to put in charge of', belemmeren (in)'to impede', dwingen (tot)'to force', helpen (met)'to help with', machtigen (tot)'to authorize', herinneren (aan)'to remind of', ophitsen (tot)'to incite', oproepen (to)'to call upon someone (to)', overhalen (tot)'to persuade', overreden (tot)'to persuade', stimuleren (tot)'to stimulate', stijven (in)'to confirm someone in', uitdagen (tot)'to challenge', uitnodigen (tot)'to invite/ask', verleiden (tot)'to tempt to', verplichten (tot)'to oblige to', waarschuwen (voor)'to alert'

Note in passing that some of the verbs in (404a) are also compatible with subject control; instances are verzoeken/vragen'to request' and overreden'to persuade'. We will postpone discussion of this to Subsection E.
The examples in (405) provide a concrete case of object control with a ditransitive verb and show that passivization is readily allowed. It is, however, not immediately clear whether this shows that we are dealing with non-obligatory control. One might argue that promotion of the infinitival clause to subject destroys the c-command relation between the indirect object and the PRO-subject; indirect objects do not c-command subjects, but one might also argue that we are dealing with a reconstruction effect, that is, that it is not the surface but the underlying representation that matters. The latter option can, however, be countered (on more or less theory-internal grounds) by pointing out that NP-movement in passive, unaccusative and raising constructions is often claimed not to exhibit such effects, so that we would have to introduce special stipulations for these cases of object control.

405

a.	Jani	raadde	Mariej/haarj	af	[(om) PROj	in de rivier	te zwemmen].
	Jan	advised	Marie/her	against	comp	in the river	to swim
	'Jan advised Marie/her against swimming in the river.'

b.		Er	werd	Mariej/haarj	aangeraden	[(om) PROj	dat boek	te lezen].
		there	was	Marie/her	prt.-advised	comp	that book	to read

A more conclusive reason for assuming that we are not dealing with obligatory control is that the indirect object is often omitted. Our Google search has shown that strings like [ (Subject) raad(t)/raden af om'(Subject) advise(s) against' and its passive counterpart [ Er wordt afgeraden om] are very frequent: the former occurs over one million and the second over 100.000 times. It should be noted, however, that not all verbs allow the omission of the indirect object: this seems to give less felicitous results with the verbs beletten'to prevent', misgunnen'to envy', opdragen'to assign', toelaten'to allow' and verhinderen'to prevent' (where the actual judgments may vary from verb to verb and speaker to speaker).
The examples in (405) provide a concrete case of object control with a transitive PO-verb and shows that passivization is readily allowed. This does not provide evidence against an obligatory control analysis, but it does show that the notion of object control should be taken with a pinch of salt; it is clearly not the syntactic function of the antecedent that is at stake but its semantic function.

406

a.	Mariei	roept	onsj	op	[(om) PROj	naar het feest	te komen].
	Marie	appeals	us	prt.	comp	to the party	to come
	'Marie calls upon us to come to the party.'

b.	Wej	worden	opgeroepen	[(om) PROj	naar het feest	te komen].
	we	are	prt.-appeal	comp	to the party	to come
	'Weʼre called upon to come to the party.'

That we are dealing with non-obligatory control is clear, however, from the fact that the antecedent is often omitted. Our Google search has shown that strings like [ (Subject) roep(t)/roepen op om'(Subject) appeal(s)' and its passive counterpart [ Er wordt opgeroepen om] are very frequent: the former occurs over one million and the second over 100 times. It should be noted, however, that not all verbs allow the omission of the direct object: this seems to give less felicitous results with the verbs activeren (tot)'to activate', belemmeren (in), dwingen (tot)'to force', machtigen (tot)'to authorize', herinneren (aan)'to remind of', overhalen (tot)'to persuade', overreden (tot)'to persuade', overtuigen van'to convince of', stijven *(in ...)'to confirm someone in', uitdagen (tot)'to challenge', uitnodigen (tot)'to invite to', verleiden (tot)'to tempt to', verplichten (tot)'to oblige to' (where the actual judgments may again vary from verb to verb and speaker to speaker).
Since we have seen that the ditransitive verbs in (404) retain the possibility of passivization if they take an om + te-infinitival as direct object, it is no surprise that there are also dyadic unaccusative (nom-dat) verbs selecting om + te-infinitivals; in both cases the infinitival clause is an internal argument of the verb that is promoted to subject. Section 2.1.3, sub II, has shown that there are two types of nom-dat and both indeed include object control verbs.

407

Nom-dat verbs selecting zijn'to be': (gemakkelijk) afgaan'to come easy to', (e.g., goed) bekomen'to agree with', bevallen'to please', lukken'to succeed', meevallen'to turn out better/less difficult than expected', ontgaan'to escape', ontschieten'to slip oneʼs mind', tegenvallen'to disappoint', (goed) uitkomen'to work out well'Nom-dat verbs selecting zijn'to be': ( gemakkelijk) afgaan'to come easy to', (e.g., goed) bekomen'to agree with', bevallen'to please', lukken'to succeed', meevallen'to turn out better/less difficult than expected', ontgaan'to escape', ontschieten'to slip oneʼs mind', tegenvallen'to disappoint', ( goed) uitkomen'to work out well'

Nom-dat verbs selecting hebben'to have': aanspreken'to appeal', aanstaan'to please', behagen'to please', berouwen'to regret', betamen'to befit', (e.g., goed) liggen'to appeal to', schaden'to do damage to', spijten'to regret', tegenstaan'to pall on', (niet) zinnen'to (not) please'Nom-dat verbs selecting hebben'to have': aanspreken'to appeal', aanstaan'to please', behagen'to please', berouwen'to regret', betamen'to befit', (e.g., goed) liggen'to appeal to', schaden'to do damage to', spijten'to regret', tegenstaan'to pall on', ( niet) zinnen'to (not) please'

Two concrete examples of the object control version of these verb types are given in (408). Of course, passivization cannot be used to demonstrate that we are dealing with non-obligatory control, given that passivization of unaccusative verbs is impossible anyway.

408

a.	Het	bevalt	hemi	goed	[(om) PROi	hier	te wonen].
	it	pleases	him	well	comp	here	to live
	'It pleases him to live here.'

b.	Het	spreekt	hemi	aan	[(om) PROi	hier	te wonen].
	it	appeals	him	prt.	comp	here	to live
	'It appeals to him to live here.'

However, it should be clear from the fact that the antecedent can often be omitted that we are dealing with non-obligatory control. Our Google search has shown that strings like [ het bevalt goed om'it pleases' and [ het spreekt aan om'it appeals' occur regularly: the former string resulted in about 70 hits and the latter in about 20. It should be noted, however, that in these cases there seems to be a preference to construe PRO as referring to the speaker. Moreover, the omission of the indirect object seems to give less felicitous results with the verbs ( gemakkelijk) afgaan'to come easy to', (e.g., goed) bekomen'to agree with', ontgaan'to escape', ontschieten'to slip oneʼs mind', aanstaan'to please', behagen'to please', berouwen'to regret', betamen'to befit', tegenstaan'to pall on', ( niet) zinnen'to (not) please' (where the actual judgments may again vary from verb to verb and speaker to speaker).
To conclude, we want to note that the vast majority of causative object experiencer psych-verbs discussed in Section 2.5.1.3, sub II, that is, verbs of the type amuseren'to amuse', bemoedigen'to encourage', boeien'to fascinate', ergeren'to annoy', fascineren'to fascinate', grieven'to hurt', etc. can be used as object experiencer verbs with the om + te-infinitival functioning as a cause. Again, passivization cannot be used to demonstrate that we are dealing with non-obligatory control as passivization of causative object experiencer psych-verbs is impossible anyway (cf. Section 2.5.1.3, sub IID), but it is supported by the fact that the object can be omitted in various cases (with actual judgments again varying from verb to verb and speaker to speaker).

409

a.	Het	irriteert	mei	[(om) PROi	steeds	verhalen	te horen over haar hond].
	it	annoys	me	comp	always	stories	to hear about her dog
	'It annoys me to hear stories about her dog all the time.'

a'.		Het	irriteert	[(om) PROarb	steeds	verhalen	te horen over haar hond].
		it	annoys	comp	always	stories	to hear about her dog

b.	Het	vertedert	mei	[(om) PROi	zoʼn jonge hond	te zien	spelen].
	it	touches	me	comp	such.a young dog	to see	play
	'I find it endearing to see to see such a puppy play.'

b'.		Het	vertedert	[(om) PROarb	zoʼn jonge hond	te zien	spelen].
		it	touches	comp	such.a young dog	to see	play

[+] D. PRO-subjects with split antecedents or arbitrary reference

This subsection discusses a number of cases that are often assumed to involve non-obligatory control. More specifically, we will discuss cases violating the uniqueness requirement on obligatory control in (389d) by allowing PRO to take a split antecedent as well as cases violating the overt antecedent requirement in (389a) by allowing PRO to receive an arbitrary interpretation.

[+] 1. Verbs that allow PRO to have split antecedents

Example (410) provides a number of verbs that allow split antecedents. The verbs in (410) are of two types.

410

Ditransitive verbs: aanbieden'to offer', voorstellen'to propose'

Transitive verbs with a comitative met-PP: afspreken (met)'to agree (on)', overeenkomen (met)'to agree'

The first type of control verbs that allow split antecedents is ditransitive and consists of the verbs aanbieden'to offer' and voorstellen'to propose'. Given that these verbs behave in a similar way in all relevant respects, we will only discuss the verb voorstellen here. Consider the examples in (411), which show that this verb is very lenient when it comes to control: it is compatible with subject control, object control and also allows PRO to take a split antecedent consisting of the subject and the indirect object.

411

a.	Elsi	stelde	Janj	voor	[(om) PROi	hemj	te helpen].
	Els	proposed	Jan	prt.	comp	him	to help
	'Els proposed to Jan to help him.'

b.	Elsi	stelde	Janj	voor	[(om) PROj	het	samen	met haari	te doen].
	Els	proposed	Jan	prt.	comp	it	together	with her	to do
	'Els proposed to Jan to do it together with her (=Els).'

c.	Elsi	stelde	Janj	voor	[(om) PROi+j	het	samen	te doen].
	Els	proposed	Jan	prt.	comp	it	together	to do
	'Els proposed to Jan to do it together.'

Note that we have added a referential personal pronoun with an antecedent in the matrix clause to the infinitival clauses in (411a&b) in order to block the split antecedent reading. In order to see how this works, consider the examples in (412a&b), which show that the personal pronouns hem'him' and haar'her' cannot refer to, respectively, Jan and Els due to the fact that their reference is included in the reference of the subject of the clause. Consequently, the reference of the pronouns cannot be included in the reference of the PRO-subject in (411a&b) either, which makes it impossible for PRO to take the subject and the object of the matrix clause as a split antecedent. The addition of samen'together' to example (411c), on the other hand, strongly favors a split antecedent reading as this element normally requires a plural subject: the use of a singular subject in (412c) is quite marked (when a comitative met-PP is not present).

412

a.		Zij,	[Elsi en Janj],	hielpen	hemk/*j.
		they	Els and Jan	helped	him

b.		Zij,	[Elsi en Janj],	deden	het	samen	met haark/*i.
		they	Els and Jan	did	it	together	with her

c.		Zij deden/$Hij deed	het	samen.
		they did/he did	it	together

All examples in (411) can be passivized, especially if the bare indirect object is omitted. This violates condition (389a) on obligatory control, and hence supports the claim that we are dealing with non-obligatory control in these examples. For completeness' sake, we want to note that our Google search on the string [ er werd voorgesteld om] resulted in over 100.000 hits. Unfortunately, it is not possible to specifically search for the three subtypes in (413) so that our search results do not allow us to say anything about their relative frequency.

413

a.	Er	werd	voorgesteld	[(om) PROarb	hemj	te helpen].
	there	was	prt.-proposed	comp	him	to help
	'It was proposed to help him.'

b.	Er	werd	voorgesteld	[(om) PROarb	het	samen met haarj	te doen].
	there	was	prt.-proposed	comp	it	together with her	to do
	'It was proposed to do it together with her.'

c.	Er	werd	voorgesteld	[(om) PROarb	het	samen	te doen].
	there	was	prt.-proposed	comp	it	together	to do
	'It was proposed to do it together.'

That we are dealing with non-obligatory control in (411) can further be supported for the object control example by the fact that the bare indirect object Jan can be replaced by the prepositional one aan Jan, as shown by (414).

414

a.	Elsi	stelde	aan Janj	voor	[(om) PROi	hemj	te helpen].
	Els	proposed	to Jan	prt.	comp	him	to help
	'Els proposed to Jan to help him.'

b.	Elsi	stelde	aan Janj	voor	[(om) PROj	het	samen met haarj	te doen].
	Els	proposed	to Jan	prt.	comp	it	together with her	to do
	'Els proposed to Jan to do it together with her.'

c.	Elsi	stelde	aan Janj	voor	[(om) PROi+j	het	samen	te doen].
	Els	proposed	to Jan	prt.	comp	it	together	to do
	'Els proposed to Jan to do it together.'

The reason for assuming that (414b) involves non-obligatory control is that it violates the c-command requirement on obligatory control in (389c). This is due to the fact that the prepositional indirect objects in (414) differ from the bare indirect objects in (411) in that they do not c-command the infinitival direct object clause, but are in fact c-commanded by it. This state of affairs is clear from binding: the examples in (415) show that bare indirect objects can bind (phrases embedded in) direct objects, while direct objects can bind (phrases embedded in) prepositional indirect objects; cf. Daalder & Blom (1976). The (a)-examples illustrate this by means of binding of a reciprocal, and the (b)-examples by means of bound variable licensing. It should be noted, however, that the double object construction in the primeless examples is not very frequent in binding contexts, and that it is normally the variant with a prepositional object in the primed examples that is used in such contexts.

415

a.	Jan stelde	de meisjesIO	elkaarDO	voor.
	Jan introduced	the girls	each.other	prt.
	'Jan introduced the girls to each other.'

a'.	Jan stelde	de meisjesDO	aan elkaariO	voor.
	Jan introduced	the girls	to each.other	prt.
	'Jan introduced the girls to each other.'

b.	Jan stelde	iedereenIO	zijn begeleiderDO	voor.
	Jan introduced	everyone	his supervisor	prt.
	'Jan introduced everyone to his supervisor.'

b'.	Jan stelde	iedereenDO	aan zijn begeleiderIO	voor.
	Jan introduced	everyone	to his supervisor	prt.
	'Jan introduced everyone to his supervisor.'

For completeness' sake, it should also be noted that our claim that (415a) involves binding of a direct object by a bare indirect object is not supported by German, given that such examples are unacceptable in this language; see Webelhuth (1989: Section 5.6) and Haider (2010: Section 6.4). With respect to variable binding, on the other hand, German does exhibit the same behavior as Dutch by allowing examples such as (415b); cf. Lee & Santorini (1994). We refer the reader to Den Dikken (1995: Section 4.6) for a discussion of this paradoxical behavior of German.
The second type of control verbs that allow split antecedents are transitive verbs of communication such as afspreken'to agree' and its more formal counterpart overeenkomen'to agree'. Given that these two verbs behave in a similar way in all relevant respects, we will only discuss the less formal form. The primeless examples in (416) show that afspreken normally triggers subject control by a plural subject, but also allows split antecedents if it is accompanied by a comitative met-PP. The acceptability of (416b) violates the uniqueness requirement on obligatory control in (389d) and thus shows that afspreken does not involve obligatory control.

416

a.	[Jan en Marie]i	spraken	af	[(om) PROi	vroeg	te vertrekken].
	Jan and Marie	agreed	prt.	comp	early	to leave
	'Jan and Marie agreed to leave early.'

b.	Jani	sprak	met Mariej	af	[(om) PROi+j	vroeg	te vertrekken].
	Jan	agreed	with Marie	prt.	comp	early	to leave
	'Jan agreed with Marie to leave early.'

That we are dealing with non-obligatory control in (416) is supported by the passive examples in (417), which show that the antecedent of PRO need not be overtly expressed, in violation of condition (389a) on obligatory control.

417

a.	Er	werd	afgesproken	[(om) PROarb	vroeg	te vertrekken].
	there	was	prt.-agreed	comp	early	to leave
	'It was agreed to leave early.'

b.	Er	werd	met Marie	afgesproken	[(om) PROarb	vroeg	te vertrekken].
	there	was	with Marie	prt.-agreed	comp	early	to leave
	'It was agreed with Marie to leave early.'

Passivization of constructions such as (416) is very common: a Google search on the colloquial string [ werd (met *) afgesproken om] resulted in numerous hits, and on the more formal string [ er werd (met *) overeengekomen om] in nearly 200 hits. For completeness' sake, observe that the PRO-subject in (417b) may refer to a completely arbitrary set of individuals or to an arbitrary set of individuals that includes Marie.

[+] 2. Verbs that allow an arbitrary interpretation of PRO

Example (418) provides a sample of intransitive and transitive verbs that may take an om + te-infinitival clause functioning as, respectively, subject and direct object. The PRO-subject of these infinitival clauses allows an arbitrary interpretation, which means that it does not require an overt antecedent, in violation of condition (389a) on obligatory control. Consequently, we are dealing with non-obligatory control verbs.

418

Intransitive (PO-)verbs: ingaan (tegen)'to go against', voor de hand liggen'to stand to reason', indruisen (tegen)'to go against'

Transitive verbs: afkeuren'to disapprove', afwijzen'to reject', fiatteren'to authorize', goedkeuren'to approve', uitnodigen (tot)'to invite/entice'veroordelen'to condemn'Transitive verbs: afkeuren'to disapprove', afwijzen'to reject', fiatteren'to authorize', goedkeuren'to approve', uitnodigen (tot)'to invite/entice' veroordelen'to condemn'

A number of concrete examples are given in (419); the (phrasal) verbs in the (a)-examples are intransitive and the verbs in the (b)-examples are transitive. Note that the infinitival argument clauses in these constructions are normally introduced by the anticipatory subject/object pronoun het'it', and that the PRO-subject in the (b)-examples receives an arbitrary interpretation despite the fact that there is a potential controller present syntactically, viz., the subject of the matrix clause.

419

a.	Het	ligt	voor de hand	[(om) PROarb	het	te weigeren].
	it	lies	for the hand	comp	it	to refuse
	'It stands to reason to refuse it.'

a'.	Het	gaat	in	tegen het fatsoen	[(om) PROarb	te vloeken].
	it	goes	prt.	against the propriety	comp	to curse
	'It isnʼt considered proper to swear.'

b.	De VN	keurt	het	af	[(om) PROarb	zomaar	een land	aan te vallen].
	the UN	disapproves	it	prt.	comp	like.that	a country	prt. to attack
	'Attacking a country without a good cause is disapproved of by the UN.'

b'.	De kerk	veroordeelt	het	[(om) PROarb	te vloeken].
	the church	condemns	it	comp	to curse
	'Swearing is condemned by the church.'

The use of arbitrary PRO is especially pervasive in constructions with the verbs listed in (420), in which om + te-infinitivals function as logical subjects of adjectival complementives.

420

Copular verbs; zijn'to be', worden'to become' and blijven 'to remain

Modal verbs: lijken'to appear', schijnen'to seem' and blijken 'to turn out

The verbs vinden'to consider' and achten'to consider'

It is important to note, however, that the control properties of the complementive constructions are not determined by the verbs in (420) but by the predicatively used adjectives; Section A6.5, sub III, argues that we can distinguish the three subtypes in (421).

421

Obligatorycontroladjectives optionally select a van- or voor-PP with a +animate complement; PRO is controlled by the nominal complement of the PP. Examples: aardig'nice', dom'stupid', flauw'silly', gemakkelijk'easy', moeilijk'difficult', slim'smart', etc.Obligatorycontroladjectives optionally select a van- or voor-PP with a +animate complement; PRO is controlled by the nominal complement of the PP. Examples: aardig'nice', dom'stupid', flauw'silly', gemakkelijk'easy', moeilijk'difficult', slim'smart', etc.

Optionalcontroladjectives optionally select a voor-PP with a +animate or a -animate complement; PRO may be controlled by the nominal complement of the PP, but may also receive an arbitrary interpretation. Examples: belangrijk'important', goed'good', gevaarlijk'dangerous', leuk'nice', schadelijk'harmful'. etc.Optionalcontroladjectives optionally select a voor-PP with a +animate or a -animate complement; PRO may be controlled by the nominal complement of the PP, but may also receive an arbitrary interpretation. Examples: belangrijk'important', goed'good', gevaarlijk'dangerous', leuk'nice', schadelijk'harmful'. etc.

Arbitrary control adjectives do not select a PP; PRO receives an arbitrary interpretation.Examples: afkeurenswaardig'condemnable', gebruikelijk'common', onnodig'not needed', etc.Arbitrary control adjectives do not select a PP; PRO receives an arbitrary interpretation.Examples: afkeurenswaardig'condemnable', gebruikelijk'common', onnodig'not needed', etc.

We will not discuss the adjectives in (421) in detail here since this is done in Section A6.5, sub III, but do want to stress that, despite their name, the adjectives in (421a) do not involve obligatory control in the technical sense defined in (389). The simple fact that the PP-complements in the primeless examples in (422) are optional already seems to militate against this as it would result in a violation of the overt antecedent requirement on obligatory control in (389a). Omission of the PP-complement may lead to a generic interpretation, as is clear from the fact that the PRO-subject can function in such cases as the antecedent of a generic pronoun like jezelf'oneself': Het is verstandig om PROarb jezelfarb goed te verzorgen'It is wise to take good care of oneself'.

422

a.	Het	is verstandig	van Peteri	[(om) PROi	zijn fiets	te smeren].
	it	is wise	of Peter	comp	his bike	to grease
	'It is wise of Peter to grease his bike.'

a'.	Het	is verstandig	[(om) PROarb	je fiets	te smeren].
	it	is wise	comp	je bike	to grease
	'It is wise to grease oneʼs bike.'

b.	Het	is gemakkelijk	voor Peteri	[(om) PROi	die som	te maken].
	it	is easy	for Peter	comp	that calculation	to make
	'It is easy for Peter to make that calculation.'

b'.	Het	is gemakkelijk	[(om) PROarb	die som	te maken].
	it	is easy	comp	that calculation	to make
	'It is easy to make that calculation.'

What should make us even more suspicious than the optionality of the PPs is that it is highly doubtful that the PRO-subjects in the primeless examples are c-commanded by their antecedents, given that the infinitival clauses function as logical subjects of the predicative adjectives, whereas the PPs containing the antecedents seem to function as complements of these adjectives; under all standard definitions of c-command it is the subject that c-commands the PP-complement, and not vice versa—it is always the higher phrase that c-commands the more deeply embedded one: [SC subject [A voor/van-PP]]. This would lead to the conclusion that the primeless examples involve accidental coreference between the noun phrase Peter and PRO and not obligatory control. In principle, this might be checked by replacing Peter by the universally quantified element iedereen'everyone'; if the interpretation of PRO is dependent on iedereen, we are dealing with the so-called bound-variable reading, which can result from accidental coreference. Unfortunately, the judgments on the examples seem to vary among speakers; whereas some speakers seem to consider the bound variable reading marked, other speakers seem to accept it. In order to help the Dutch speakers to test whether they allow the bound variable reading, we used the possessive pronoun zijn'his' in (423a); the bound variable reading should be compatible with a reading in which all persons involved are associated with a different bicycle, the one they own.

423

a.	%	Het	is verstandig	van iedereeni	[(om) PROi	zijn fiets	te smeren].
		it	is wise	of everyone	comp	his bike	to grease
		'Everyone would be well-advised to grease his bike.'

b.	%	Het	is gemakkelijk	voor iedereeni	[(om) PROi	die som	te maken].
		it	is easy	for everyone	comp	that calculation	to make
		'It is easy for everyone to make that calculation.'

A further complication is that voor-PPs are often used as restrictive adverbial phrases; this reading can be favored by placing the PP in front of the predicative adjective, as in (424b), and in which case the variable binding reading seems acceptable for all speakers.

424

a.	%	Het	is van iedereeni	verstandig	[(om) PROi	zijn fiets	te smeren].
		it	is of everyone	wise	comp	his bike	to grease
		'Everyone would be well-advised to grease his bike.'

b.	Het	is voor iedereeni	gemakkelijk	[(om) PROi	die som	te maken].
	it	is for everyone	easy	comp	that calculation	to make
	'It is easy for everyone to make that calculation.'

Given the complexity of the data, the variability in judgments on the availability of the bound variable reading in examples such as (423), and the interfering factor that the voor-PP can potentially be interpreted as a restrictive adverbial phrase, it is not easy to draw any firm conclusions from the c-command restriction on obligatory control.
Things are different when we get to the locality restriction. Example (425a) shows that the controller may be non-local; the subject of the main clause can (but need not) function as the antecedent of the PRO-subject of the more deeply embedded infinitival clause. Note, however, that control by the nominal part of the PP-complement takes precedence; if a van/voor-complement is present, as in (425b), the non-local control relation will be blocked. The only thing that the adjectives in (421a) seem to have in common with genuine cases of obligatory control is that they normally do not tolerate split antecedents: examples such as (425c) are quite marked (although some of our informants seem to marginally accept examples like these).

425

a.	Wiji	denken	dat	het	slim	is	[(om) PROi	elkaari	te helpen].
	we	think	that	it	smart	is	comp	each.other	to help
	'We think that it is smart to help each other.'

b.	Wiji	denken	dat	het	slim	van zej	is [(om) PROj/*i	elkaarj	te helpen].
	we	think	that	it	smart	of them	is comp	each.other	to help
	'We think that it is smart of them to help each other.'

c.	??	Jani	vindt	het	slim	van Mariej	[(om) PROi+j	elkaari+j	te helpen].
		Jan	considers	it	smart	of Marie	comp	each.other	to help
		'Jan considers it smart of Marie to help each other.'

That the adjectives in (421b) do not involve obligatory control is not only clear from the optionality of the PP-complement of the adjective but also from the fact that in some cases the complement of the PP need not be construed as coreferential with the PRO-subject. An example such as Het is belangrijk voor Jan om daar op tijd te zijn'It is important for Jan to be there in time' is ambiguous between the two readings given in (426): the PRO-subject can be construed as coreferential with Jan but (given the right contextual situation) also receive an arbitrary interpretation.

426

a.	Het	is belangrijk	voor Jani	[(om) PROi	daar	op tijd	te zijn].
	it	is important	for Jan	comp	there	in time	to be
	'It is important for Jan that he (=Jan) will be there in time.'

b.	Het	is belangrijk	voor Jani	[(om) PROarb	daar	op tijd	te zijn].
	it	is important	for Jan	comp	there	in time	to be
	'It is important for Jan that some contextually determined person(s), e.g., the speaker and addressee, will be there in time.'

The fact that an arbitrary interpretation is possible is even clearer if the nominal complement of the PP is non-animate; this is illustrated in (427a), in which the inherently reflexive verb zich wassen'to wash (oneself)' takes an animate subject. Example (427b) shows that in such cases it is even possible for PRO to have a non-local antecedent; the reflexive zich is only possible if the PRO-subject is construed non-arbitrarily; cf. example (427a), in which the use of PROarb forces the reflexive to appear in its generic form je'one'. We also refer the reader to Lebeaux (1984) and Petter (1998:40-1).

427

a.	Het is schadelijk voor het milieu	[(om) PROarb	jei	met zeep	te wassen].
	it is harmful to the environment	comp	refl	with soap	to wash
	'It is harmful to the environment to wash oneself with soap.'

b.	Jani	denkt	dat	het	schadelijk	is voor het milieu	[(om) PROi	zichi	met zeep	te wassen].
	Jan	thinks	that	it	harmful	is to the environment	comp	refl	with soap	to wash
	'Jan believes it is harmful to the environment to wash himself with soap.'

That the adjectives in (421c) are not instances of obligatory control is clear from the fact that they do not normally take a PP with a complement that could function as the antecedent of the PRO-subject; addition of a van- or a voor-PP to examples such as (428) normally gives rise to a marked or degraded result, as is clear from the fact that we found fewer than 10 relevant cases of the sequence [ afkeurenswaardig van] on the internet, which are mostly suspect (they come from historical/formal sources or from potentially non-native speakers) and never involve control.

428

a.	Het	is afkeurenswaardig	[om PROarb	daar	te laat	te komen].
	it	is condemnable	comp	there	too late	to come
	'It is condemnable to get there late.'

b.	*?	Het	is afkeurenswaardig	van Jani	[om PROi	daar	te laat	te komen].
		it	is condemnable	of Jan	comp	there	too late	to come

[+] E. Syntactic or semantic control, or perhaps pragmatics?

The previous subsections have proved that there is actually no reason for claiming that PRO-subjects of argumental om + te-infinitivals involve obligatory control in the sense defined in (389), repeated here as (429).

429

be overtly realized in the sentence containing PRO;

be local (a co-argument of the infinitival clause containing PRO);

be a c-commanding nominal argument (subject or object);

be unique (cannot be "split").

This does not imply that the interpretation of PRO-subjects is entirely free but only that it is not subject to syntactic restrictions, because there is good reason for assuming that the meaning of the matrix verb imposes restrictions to the interpretation of the PRO-subject. The ditransitive verb beloven'to promise' in (430a), for example, can conveniently be characterized as a verb that requires control by its agent, which also accounts for the fact that the controller of PRO must be the nominal complement in the optional agentive door-PP (and not the c-commanding indirect object pronoun ons) in the corresponding passive construction in (430a'). In fact, we can show the same thing by means of the nominal constructions in the (b)-examples: the controller of the PRO-subject must be bound to the agent of the nominalization belofte'promise', regardless of whether it does or does not c-command PRO: this is clear from the fact that it can not only be expressed by means of a c-commanding prenominal possessor but also by means of a postnominal van-PP. The doubly-primed examples are added to show that the agent can also be left implicit in both the verbal and the nominal construction, in violation of the condition on obligatory control in (429a).

430

a.	Mariei	beloofde	onsj	[(om) PROi	de auto	te repareren].
	Marie	promised	us	comp	the car	to repair
	'Marie promised us to repair the car.'

a'.		Er	werd	onsj	door Mariei	beloofd	[(om) PROi	de auto	te repareren].
		there	was	us	by Marie	promised	comp	the car	to repair

a''.		Er	werd	onsj	beloofd	[(om) PROarb	de auto	te repareren].
		there	was	us	promised	comp	the car	to repair

b.	[Mariesi	belofte	aan onsj	[(om) PROi	de auto	te repareren]]
	Marieʼs	promise	to us	comp	the car	to repair
	'Marieʼs promise to us to repair the car'

b'.		de belofte	van Mariei	aan onsj	[(om) PROi	de auto	te repareren]
		the promise	of Marie	to us	comp	the car	to repair

b''.		de belofte	aan onsj	[(om) PROarb	de auto	te repareren]
		the promise	to us	comp	the car	to repair

The primeless examples in (431) show that bare indirect objects in object control constructions must be realized as prepositional indirect objects in the corresponding nominalizations. Since the controller hem'him' is part of the prepositional indirect object, it does not c-command the PRO-subject of the infinitival direct object clause in (431b); again this shows that the c-command restriction in (429c) can be violated in the case of om + te-infinitivals. The primed examples are added to show that the indirect object can also be omitted in the verbal as well as the nominal construction, in violation of the condition on obligatory control in (429a).

431

a.	Wiji	adviseren	hemj	[(om) PROj	veel fruit	te eten].
	we	advise	him	comp	much fruit	to eat
	'We advise him to eat a lot of fruit.'

a'.	Wiji	adviseren	[(om) PROarb	veel fruit	te eten].
	we	advise	comp	much fruit	to eat
	'We advise to eat a lot of fruit.'

b.	[onsi	advies	aan hemj	[(om) PROj	veel fruit	te eten]]
	our	advice	to him	comp	much fruit	to eat
	'our advice to him to eat a lot of fruit'

b'.	[onsi	advies	[(om) PROarb	veel fruit	te eten]]
	our	advice	comp	much fruit	to eat
	'our advice to eat a lot of fruit'

That indirect object control is not sensitive to the syntactic realization of the controller can also be illustrated by means of verbal constructions such as (432a), which are acceptable regardless of whether the goal argument is realized as a bare or as a prepositional indirect object. It should be noted, however, that for some reason the goal argument is nevertheless preferably realized as a nominal object in object control structures: verbs like vragen, which allow the dative shift alternation in contexts such as (432a), are rare; and cases such as (432b), which require the goal argument to be realized as a bare noun phrase, are clearly more common than cases like (432c&d), which require the goal argument to be realized as a PP.

432

a.	Jan vroeg	(aan) Peteri	[(om) PROi	de boodschappen	te doen].
	Jan asked	to Peter	comp	the shopping	to do
	'Jan asked (of) Peter to go shopping.'

b.	Jan beval	(*aan)	Peteri	[(om) PROi	de boodschappen	te doen].
	Jan ordered	to	Peter	comp	the shopping	to do
	'Jan ordered Peter to do the shopping.'

c.	Jan liet het	*(aan)	Peteri	over	[(om) PROi	de boodschappen	te doen].
	Jan left it	to	Peter	prt.	comp	the shopping	to do
	'Jan left it to Peter to do the shopping.'

d.	Jan dringt	er	(bij de directeuri)	op	aan	[(om) PROi	snel	te handelen].
	Jan urges	there	with the director	on	prt.	comp	fast	to act
	'Jan urges the director to act fast.'

That it is not the syntactic function of the controller but its semantic role that is at stake is also clear from the fact illustrated in (433) that passivization transfers transitive PO-verbs like overhalen'to persuade' from the set of object control verbs to the set of subject control verbs; this follows immediately from the assumption that these verbs require control by a theme argument, not by an object.

433

a.	Mariei	haalde	Elsj ertoe	over	[(om) PROj	te zingen].
	Marie	persuaded	Els to-it	prt.	comp	to sing
	'Marie persuaded Els to sing.'

b.	Elsj	werd	er	door Mariei	toe overgehaald	[(om) PROj	te zingen].
	Els	was	there	by Marie	prt. prt.-persuaded	comp	to sing
	'Els was persuaded by Marie to sing.'

The discussion above suggests that the well-established notions of subject and object control are actually misnomers for cases involving om + te-infinitivals, and that it would be better to rephrase these notions in terms of thematic roles like agent, goal and theme; cf. Van Haaften (1991:ch.5). The examples in (434) in fact suggest that even this may still be an oversimplification of the actual state of affairs. The previous subsections followed the general practice of treating verbs like beloven'to promise' and verzoeken'to request' as, respectively, subject and object control verbs. The contrast between the primeless and primed examples shows, however, that the semantic contents of the embedded clause (induced here by the absence/presence of the deontic modal mogen'to be allowed') can change the control properties, a phenomenon that has become known as control shift.

434

a.	Jani	beloofde	Peterj	[(om) PROi/*j	te komen].	subject control
	Jan	promised	Peter	comp	to come
	'Jan promised Peter to come.'

a'.	Jani	beloofde	Peterj	[(om) PROj/*i	te mogen	komen].	object control
	Jan	promised	Peter	comp	to be.allowed.to	come
	'Jan promised Peter to be allowed to come.'

b.	Jani	verzocht	Peterj	[(om) PROj/*i	te komen].	object control
	Jan	requested	Peter	comp	to come
	'Jan asked Peter to come.'

b'.	Jani	verzocht	Peterj	[(om) PROi/*j	te mogen	komen].	subject control
	Jan	requested	Peter	comp	to be.allowed.to	come
	'Jan asked Peter to be allowed to come.'

The possibility of control shift shows that the matrix verbs beloven'to promise' and verzoeken'to request' have no inherent preference for subject or object control, but that the meaning of the constructions as a whole in tandem with our knowledge of the world determines which options are possible. The illocutionary act of beloven'to promise' normally consists in committing oneself to perform some action, whereas the illocutionary act of verzoeken'to request' aims at obtaining such a commitment from someone else. The infinitival clauses in the primeless examples in (434) simply refer to the promised/requested action, and our knowledge of the world therefore leads to the coindexing indicated. The infinitival clauses in the primed examples, on the other hand, do not refer to the promised/requested action; this action is left implicit and involves the granting of permission to come; cf. Van Haaften (1991:233-6). Given that granting permission is normally a non-reflexive action, this entails the counter-indexing indicated in the primed examples. If this line of reasoning is on the right track, we may conclude that control of the PRO-subject of argumental om + te-infinitivals is not a matter of syntax or semantics, but of pragmatics. This would immediately account for the pervasive violations of the four restrictions in (389), that is, the restrictions that define syntactic dependencies: obligatoriness, locality, c-command, and uniqueness.

References:

Bennis, Hans & Hoekstra, Teun1989PRO and the Binding TheoryBennis, Hans & Kemenade, Ans van (eds.)Linguistics in the Netherlands 1989Dordrecht11-20
Bresnan, Joan1982Control and complementationLinguistic Inquiry13343-434
Daalder, Saskia & Blom, Aleid1976De strukturele positie van reflexieve en reciproke pronominaSpektator5397-414
Dikken, Marcel den1995Particles: on the syntax of verb-particle, triadic, and causative constructionsOxford studies in comparative syntaxNew York/OxfordOxford University Press
Haaften, Ton van1991De interpretatie van verzwegen subjectenFree University AmsterdamThesis
Haaften, Ton van1991De interpretatie van verzwegen subjectenFree University AmsterdamThesis
Haaften, Ton van1991De interpretatie van verzwegen subjectenFree University AmsterdamThesis
Haaften, Ton van1991De interpretatie van verzwegen subjectenFree University AmsterdamThesis
Haaften, Ton van1991De interpretatie van verzwegen subjectenFree University AmsterdamThesis
Haaften, Ton van1991De interpretatie van verzwegen subjectenFree University AmsterdamThesis
Haider, Hubert2010The syntax of GermanCambridgeCambridge University Press
Koster, Jan1984Infinitival complements in DutchGeest, Wim de & Putseys, Yvan (eds.)Sentential complementationForis Publications141-150
Koster, Jan1984Anaphoric and non-anaphoric controlLinguistic Inquiry15417-459
Koster, Jan & May, Robert1982On the constituency of infinitivesLanguage58116-143
Lebeaux, David1984Anaphoric binding and the definition of PROPreceedings of NELS14253-274
Lee, Young-Suk & Santorini, Beatrice1994Towards resolving Webelhuth's paradox: evidence from German and KoreanCorver, Norbert & Riemsdijk, Henk van (eds.)Studies on Scrambling: movement and non-movement approaches to free word-order phenomenaBerlin/New YorkMouton de Gruyter257-300
Manzini, Maria Rita1983On control and control theoryLinguistic Inquiry14421-446
Paardekooper, P.C1985Indeling van de <i>om</i>-zinnen en indelingen met behulp daarvanGLOT8127-128
Paardekooper, P.C1986Beknopte ABN-syntaksisEindhovenP.C. Paardekooper
Petter, Marga1998Getting PRO under control. A syntactic analysis of the nature and distribution of unexpressed subjects in non-finite and verbless clausesAmsterdamFree University AmsterdamThesis
Petter, Marga1998Getting PRO under control. A syntactic analysis of the nature and distribution of unexpressed subjects in non-finite and verbless clausesAmsterdamFree University AmsterdamThesis
Petter, Marga1998Getting PRO under control. A syntactic analysis of the nature and distribution of unexpressed subjects in non-finite and verbless clausesAmsterdamFree University AmsterdamThesis
Webelhuth, Gert1989Syntactic saturation phenomena and the modern Germanic languagesUniversity of MassachusettsThesis
Williams, Edwin1980PredicationLinguistic Inquiry11203-238

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: BindingC-commanding AntecedentControl ShiftLocal AntecedentOvert AntecedentPRO-subjectSplit Antecedent

Version: 1.0, January 2016

Version history:

version	editor(s)	date	remarks
1.0	Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver	January 2016

report errorprintcite

Jump to:

introduction
references
related articles