Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T01:39:51.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Generative Syntax

Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 December 2024

Idan Landau
Idan Landau
Affiliation:
Tel-Aviv University

Summary

This Elements presents the major findings and theoretical advances in the area of Control. We describe the different types of control (complement, adjunct, obligatory, nonobligatory) and illustrate their profiles in several languages. It is shown that while certain features of Obligatory Control (OC) are common – nullness of PRO, nonfinite complements – they are not universal, hence should not enter its core definition. Comparing approaches to the choice of controller based on lexical meaning postulates with those based on embedding of speech acts, we conclude that the latter provide deeper insights into the core properties of OC. The fundamental semantic distinction between clauses denoting a property and those denoting a proposition proves to be important: It affects both the possibility of Partial Control in complements and the possibility of Non Obligatory Control in adjuncts. These insights are integrated in the Two-Tiered Theory of Control, laid out in the final sections.
Get access

Keywords

generative syntaxcontrolpredicationinfinitivesadjuncts
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Generative Syntax
Online ISBN: 9781009243124
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 09 January 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adesola, Oluseye. 2005. Pronouns and Null Operators: Ā-dependencies and Relations in Yoruba. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Adler, Allison N. 2006. Syntax and Discourse in the Acquisition of Adjunct Control. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Alboiu, Gabriela. 2007. Moving Forward with Romanian Backward Control and Raising. In New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising, ed. Davies, William D. and Dubinsky, Stanley, 187–211. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, and Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2021. Backward Control, Long Distance Agree, Nominative Case and TP/CP Transparency. In Non-canonical Control in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, ed. Mucha, Anne, Hartmann, Jutta M., and Trawiński, Beata, 15–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allotey, Deborah. 2021. Overt Pronouns of Infinitival Predicates of Gã. Western Papers in Linguistics 4:1–47.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena, and Alexiadou, Artemis. 1999. Raising without Infinitives and the Nature of Agreement. In Proceedings of WCCFL 18, ed. Bird, Sonya, Carnie, Andrew, Haugen, Jason D., and Norquest, Peter, 15–25. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Anand, Pranav. 2006. De De se. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Anand, Pranav, and Nevins, Andrew. 2004. Shifty Operators in Changing Contexts. In Proceedings of SALT 16, ed. Young, Robert B., 20–37. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Authier, J.-Marc, and Reed, Lisa. 2018. Symmetric Reciprocal Semantics as a Predictor of Partial Control. Linguistic Inquiry 49:379–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Authier, J.-Marc, and Reed, Lisa A. 2020. Agreement and Pronouns: Implications for Partial Control. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 16, ed. Vogel, Irene, 19–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1979. Control in Montague Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 10:515–531.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 2008. The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark, and Ikawa, Shiori. 2024. Control Theory and the Relationship between Logophoric Pronouns and Logophoric Uses of Anaphors. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-023-09592-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baltin, Mark. 2009. The Properties of Negative Non-finite Complements. In NYU Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 2: Papers in Syntax, ed. Irwin, Patricia and Maldonado, Violeta Vasquéz Rojas, 1–17. New York: New York University.Google Scholar
Barbosa, Pilar. 2009. A Case for an Agree-Based Theory of Control. In Proceedings of the 11th Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar, 101–123.Google Scholar
Baykov, Fyodor, and Rudnev, Pavel. 2020. Not All Obligatory Control Is Movement. Journal of Linguistics 56:893–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 2003. On Finiteness as Logophoric Anchoring. In Temps et Point de Vue / Tense and Point of View, ed. Guéron, Jacqueline and Tasmowski, Liliane, 213–246. Nanterre: Université Paris X.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2008. Missing Persons: A Case Study in Morphological Universals. The Linguistic Review 25:203–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan, and Landau, Idan. 2009. Icelandic Control Is Not A-movement: The Case from Case. Linguistic Inquiry 40:113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric, and Hornstein, Norbert. 2003. Reply to “Control Is Not Movement.” Linguistic Inquiry 34:269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric, and Hornstein, Norbert. 2004. Movement under Control. Linguistic Inquiry 35:431–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric, and Hornstein, Norbert. 2006a. Control in Icelandic and Theories of Control. Linguistic Inquiry 37:591–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric, and Hornstein, Norbert. 2006b. The Virtues of Control as Movement. Syntax 9:118–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric, and Hornstein, Norbert. 2007. On (Non-)Obligatory Control. In New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising, ed. Davies, William D. and Dubinsky, Stanley, 251–262. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric, Hornstein, Norbert, and Nunes, Jairo. 2010a. Icelandic Control Really Is A-movement: Reply to Bobaljik and Landau. Linguistic Inquiry 41:111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric, Hornstein, Norbert, and Nunes, Jairo. 2010b. Control as Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bondaruk, Anna. 2004. PRO and Control in English, Irish and Polish: A Minimalist Analysis. Lublin: Wydawinctwo KUL.Google Scholar
Bondaruk, Anna. 2006. The Licensing of Subjects and Objects in Irish Non-finite Clauses. Lingua 116:874–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 1996. Selection and the Categorial Status of Infinitival Complements. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 14:269–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 1984. On the Content of Empty Categories. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 1985. PRO, Pronominal or Anaphor. Linguistic Inquiry 16:471–477.Google Scholar
Bowers, John. 1973. Grammatical Relations. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Bowers, John. 1981. The Theory of Grammatical Relations. Ithaca, IY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Brame, Michael K. 1976. Conjectures and Refutations in Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1978. A Realistic Transformational Grammar. In Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality, ed. Halle, Morris, Bresnan, Joan, and Miller, George A., 1–60. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Control and Complementation. Linguistic Inquiry 13:343–434.Google Scholar
Burukina, Irina. 2023. External Merge in Spec, CP: Complementizers Projecting an Argument. Syntax 26:85–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charnavel, Isabelle. 2019. Locality and Logophoricity: A Theory of Exempt Anaphora. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1984. Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds. PhD dissertation, UMASS, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1990. Anaphora and Attitudes De Se. In Semantics and Contextual Expression, ed. Bartsch, Renate, van Benthem, Johan, and van Emde Boas, Peter, 1–32. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1955. The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. Ms. MIT. (Published by) New York: Plenum Press, 1975.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on Transformations. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. Anderson, Stephen R. and Kiparsky, Paul. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Reprinted in Noam Chomsky, ed. (1977), Essays on Form and Interpretation, pp. 81–160. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1980. On Binding. Linguistic Inquiry 11:1–46.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1991. Some Notes on Economy of Derivation and Representation. In Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, ed. Freidin, Robert, 417–454. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Lasnik, Howard. 1977. Filters and Control. Linguistic Inquiry 8:425–504.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2021. Minimalism: Where Are We Now, and Where Can We Hope to Go. Genko Kenkyu 160:1–41.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, Seely, T. Daniel, Berwick, Robert C., Fong, Sandiway, Huybregts, M. A. C., Kitahara, Hisatsugu, McInnerney, Andrew, and Sugimoto, Yushi. 2023. Merge and the Strong Minimalist Thesis: Elements in Generative Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2024. The Miracle Creed and SMT. In A Cartesian Dream: A Geometrical Account of Syntax: In honor of Andrea Moro, eds. Greco, Matteo and Mocci, Davide, 17–40: LingBuzz Press.Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2012. Control and Obviation: A View from Polish. Paper presented in SinFonIJA 5, University of Vienna.Google Scholar
Clark, Robin. 1990. Thematic Theory in Syntax and Interpretation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris, and Postal, Paul M. 2012. Imposters: A Study of Pronominal Agreement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W., and Jackendoff, Ray. 2001. Control Is Not Movement. Linguistic Inquiry 32:493–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W., and Jackendoff, Ray. 2006. Turn Over Control to Semantics. Syntax 9:131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W., and Wilkins, Wendy. 1986. Control, PRO and the Projection Principle. Language 62:120–153.Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael. 2003. The Paradigmatic Structure of Person Marking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary. 2001. Lexical Functional Grammar: Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 34. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, William D., and Dubinsky, Stanley. 2004. The Grammar of Raising and Control: A Course in Syntactic Argumentation. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose. 2020. A Theory of Indexical Shift: Meaning, Grammar and Crosslinguistics Variation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, James. 2021. Control in Free Adjuncts: The “Dangling Modifier” in English. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Douglas, Jamie. 2018. Control into Infinitival Relatives. English Language and Linguistics 23:469–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David. 1985. On Recent Analyses of the Semantics of Control. Linguistics and Philosophy 8:291–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DuBois, John W. 1987. The Discourse Basis of Ergativity. Language 63:805–855.Google Scholar
Duffley, Patrick J. 2014. Reclaiming Control as a Semantic and Pragmatic Phenomenon. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1997. The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Español-Echevarría, Manuel. 2000. The Interaction of Obligatory and Nonobligatory Control in Rationale Clauses. In Proceedings of WCCFL 19, ed. Billerey, Roger and Lillehaugen, Brook Danielle, 97–110. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donca F. 1988. On Obligatory Control. Linguistics and Philosophy 11:27–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Marcelo. 2009. Null Subjects and Finite Control in Brazilian Portuguese. In Minimalist Essays on Brazilian Portuguese Syntax, ed. Nunes, Jairo, 17–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Silke. 2018. Locality, Control, and Non-adjoined Islands. Glossa 3(1):82. doi: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.182.Google Scholar
Fischer, Silke, and Flaate Høyem, Inghild. 2022. Adjunct Control in German, Norwegian, and English. Journal of Linguistics 25:1–41.Google Scholar
Fukuda, Shinichiro. 2008. Backward Control. Language and Linguistics Compass 2:168–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganenkov, Dmitry. 2023. Partial Control with Overt Embedded Subjects in Chirag. Language 99:457–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1976. Topic, Pronoun and Grammatical Agreement. In Subject and Topic, ed. Li, Charles N., 151–188. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grano, Thomas. 2017a. What Partial Control Might Not Tell Us about Agreement: A Reply to Landau. Syntax 20:400–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grano, Thomas. 2017b. Control, Temporal Orientation, and the Cross-Linguistic Grammar of Trying. Glossa 2(1): 94. doi: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.335.Google Scholar
Grano, Thomas A. 2015. Control and Restructuring. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Jeffrey J. 2018. Adjunct Control: Syntax and Processing. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Green, Jeffrey J. 2019. A Movement Theory of Adjunct Control. Glossa 4(1): 87:1–34.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1994. Minimal Projection and Clause Structure. In Syntactic Theory and First Language Acquisition: Cross Linguistic Perspectives – Volume I: Heads, Projections and Learnability, ed. Lust, Barbara, Suñer, Margarita, and Whitman, Jonh, 75–83. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane, and Hill, Virginia. 2013. The Syntactization of Discourse. In Syntax and Its Limits, ed. Folli, Raffaella, Sevdali, Christina, and Truswell, Robert, 370–390. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpert, Claire. 2019. Raising, Unphased. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37:123–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, Chung-hye, and Storoshenko, Dennis Ryan. 2012. Semantic Binding of Long-Distance Anaphor caki in Korean. Language 88:764–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasegawa, Nobuko. 2009. Agreement at the CP Level: Clause Types and the “Person” Restriction on the Subject. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistic 5, ed. Shibagaki, Ryosuke and Vermeulen, Reiko, 131–152. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1994. Puzzling Reflexive Pronouns in De Se Reports. Unpublished handout presented at Bielefield. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 2008. Features on Bound Pronouns. In Phi Theory: Phi-Features across Modules and Interfaces, ed. Harbour, Daniel, Adger, David, and Béjar, Susana, 35–56. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbeck, Peter. 2021. The (Null) Subject of Adjunct Infinitives in Spoken Spanish. In Non-canonical Control in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, ed. Mucha, Anne, Hartmann, Jutta M., and Trawiński, Beata, 259–286. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Virginia. 2007. Vocatives and the Pragmatics – Syntax Interface. Lingua 117:2077–2105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintzen, Wolfram, and Martin, Txuss. 2021. De Se or Not De Se: A Question of Grammar. Language Sciences 85:101343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and Control. Linguistic Inquiry 30:69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2003. On Control. In Minimalist Syntax, ed. Hendrick, Randall, 6–81. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert, and Polinsky, Maria. 2010. Control as Movement: Across Languages and Constructions. In Movement Theory of Control, ed. Hornstein, Norbert and Polinsky, Maria, 1–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James. 1989. Pro-drop in Chinese: A Generalized Control Theory. In The Null Subject Parameter, ed. Jaeggli, Osvaldo and Safir, Kenneth J., 185–214. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Yan. 1994. The Syntax and Pragmatics of Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1974. A Deep Structure Projection Rule. Linguistic Inquiry 5:481–506.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray, and Culicover, Peter W. 2003. The Semantic Basis of Control in English. Language 79:517–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. 1992. Raising without Movement. In Control and Grammar, ed. Larson, Richard, Iatridou, Sabine, Lahiri, Utpal, and Higginbotham, James, 149–194. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janke, Vikki, and Bailey, Laura R. 2017. Effects of Discourse on Control. Journal of Linguistics 53:533–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenks, Peter, and Rose, Sharon. 2017. Documenting Raising and Control in Moro. In Africa’s Endangered Languages: Documentary and Theoretical Approaches, ed. Kandybowicz, Jason and Torrence, Harold, 207–236. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Charles. 1992. Comments on Goodluck and Behne. In Theoretical Issues in Language Acquisition, eds. Weissenborn, Jürgen, Goodluck, Helen and Roeper, Thomas, 173–189. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kawasaki, Noriko. 1993. Control and Arbitrary Interpretation in English. PhD dissertation, UMASS.Google Scholar
Kirby, Susannah, Davies, William D., and Dubinsky, Stanley. 2010. Up to D[eb]ate on Raising and Control. Language and Linguistics Compass 4:390–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiss, Tibor. 2004. On the Empirical Viability of the Movement Theory of Control. Ms., Ms. Ruhr-Universität Bochum.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd. 1991. Free Adjuncts and Absolutes in English: Problems of Control and Interpretation. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Koster, Jan. 1984. On Binding and Control. Linguistic Inquiry 15:417–459.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Making a Pronoun: Fake Indexicals as Windows into the Properties of Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40:187–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1972. Pronominalization, Reflexivization, and Direct Discourse. Linguistic Inquiry 3:161–195.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1975. Super Equi-NP Deletion Is a Pseudo-Transformation. In Proceedings of North Eastern Linguistic Society 5, 29–44. UMASS, Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 2006. Empathy and Direct Discourse Perspectives. In Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. Horn, Larry R. and Ward, Gregory, 315–343. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwon, Nayoung, Monahan, Philip J., and Polinsky, Maria. 2010. Object Control in Korean: A Backward Control Impostor. In Movement Theory of Control, ed. Hornstein, Norbert and Polinsky, Maria, 299–328. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of Control: Structure and Meaning in Infinitival Constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2001. Control and Extraposition: The Case of Super-Equi. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19:109–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2002. (Un)interpretable Neg in Comp. Linguistic Inquiry 33:465–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2003. Movement Out of Control. Linguistic Inquiry 34:471–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2004. The Scale of Finiteness and the Calculus of Control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22:811–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2006. Severing the Distribution of PRO from Case. Syntax 9:153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2007. Movement-Resistant Aspects of Control. In New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising, eds. Davies, William D. and Dubinsky, Stanley, 293–325. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2008. Two Routes of Control: Evidence from Case Transmission in Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26:877–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2010. The Explicit Syntax of Implicit Arguments. Linguistic Inquiry 41:357–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2013. Control in Generative Grammar: A Research Companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2015. A Two-Tiered Theory of Control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2016a. Against the Null Comitative Analysis of Partial Control. Linguisic Inquiry 47:572–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2016b. Agreement at PF: An Argument from Partial Control. Syntax 19:79–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2017. Adjunct Control Depends on Voice. In A Pesky Set: Papers for David Pesetsky, ed. Halpert, Claire, Kotek, Hadas, and van Urk, Coppe, 93–102. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2018. Direct Variable Binding and Agreement in Obligatory Control. In Pronouns in Embedded Contexts, ed. Patel-Grosz, Pritty, Grosz, Patrick Georg, and Zobel, Sarah, 1–41. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2020. Nonobligatory Control with Communication Verbs: New Evidence and Implications. Linguistic Inquiry 51:75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2021a. A Selectional Theory of Adjunct Control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2021b. Duality of Control in Gerundive Complements of P. Journal of Linguistics 57:783–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2024. Noncanonical Obligatory Control. Language and Linguistics Compass e12515. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. Empirical Challenges to the Form-Copy Theory of Control. To appear in Glossa.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1991. Promise and the Theory of Control. Linguistic Inquiry 22:103–139.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David. 1984. Anaphoric Binding and the Definition of PRO. In Proceedings of North Eastern Linguistic Society 14, ed. Jones, Charles and Sells, Peter, 253–274. UMASS, Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Lee, Kum Young. 2009. Finite Control in Korean. PhD dissertation, University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie. 2021. Noncanonical Passives: A Typology of Voices in an Impoverished Universal Grammar. Annual Reviews 7:157–176.Google Scholar
Leung, Tommi, and Halefom, Girma. 2017. The Theory and Syntactic Representation of Control Structures: An Analysis from Amharic. Glossa 2(1):97:1–33.Google Scholar
Liao, Wei-wen, and Wang, Yuyun. 2022. Attitude, Control, and the Finiteness Distinction in Chinese. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1706057/v1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohninger, Madgalena, and Wurmbrand, Susi. 2024. Typology of Argument Clauses. In Handbook of Clausal Embedding, ed. Benz, Anton, Frey, Werner, Krifka, Manfred, McFadden, Thomas, Żygis, Marzena. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, Benjamin. 2000. OT Semantics and Control. Ms., Ms. Göteborg University.Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, Benjamin. 2009. Towards a Comprehensive Construction Grammar Account of Control: A Case Study of Swedish Infinitives. Constructions and Frames 1:153–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madigan, Sean. 2008a. Control Constructions in Korean. PhD dissertation, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Madigan, Sean. 2008b. Obligatory Split Control into Exhortative Complements in Korean. Linguistic Inquiry 39:493–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita. 1983. On Control and Control Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 14:421–446.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita, and Roussou, Anna. 2000. A Minimalist Theory of A-movement and Control. Lingua 110:409–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita, and Savoia, L. Maria. 2018. Finite and Non-finite Complementation, Particles and Control in Aromanian, Compared to Other Romance Varieties and Albanian. Linguistic Variation 18:215–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Roger A. 1996. A Minimalist Theory of PRO and Control. PhD dissertation, UCONN.Google Scholar
Martins, Ana Maria, and Nunes, Jairo. 2017. Identity Avoidance with Reflexive Clitics in European Portuguese and Minimalist Approaches to Control. Linguistic Inquiry 48:627–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsuda, Asako. 2019. Person in Partial Control. PhD dissertation, Ochanomizu University.Google Scholar
Matsuda, Asako. 2021. Control from Inside: Evidence from Japanese. In Non-canonical Control in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, ed. Mucha, Anne, Hartmann, Jutta M., and Trawiński, Beata, 137–165. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1980a. Is There Raising in Modern Irish? Ériu 31:59–99.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1980b. A Note on Modern Irish Verbal Nouns and the VP-Complement Analysis. Linguistic Analysis 6:345–357.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1985. Case, Movement and Raising in Moder Irish. In Proceedings of WCCFL 4, ed. Goldberg, Jeffrey, Mackaye, Susannah, and Michael, Wescoat, 190–205. Stanford, CA: Stanford Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James, and Sells, Peter. 1988. Control and A-chains in Modern Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6:143–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2014. On Subject Reference and the Cartography of Clause Types. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32:115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, Thomas, and Sundaresan, Sandhya. 2018. Reducing pro and PRO to a Single Source. The Linguistic Review 35:463–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meinunger, André. 2006. Interface Restrictions on Verb Second. Linguistic Review 23:127–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Modesto, Marcello. 2010. What Brazilian Portuguese Says about Control: Remarks on Boeckx & Hornstein. Syntax 13:78–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Modesto, Marcello. 2018. Inflected Infinitives in Brazilian Portuguese and the Theory of Control. In Complement Clauses in Portuguese: Syntax and Acquisition, ed. Santos, Ana Lúcia and Gonçalves, Anabela, 59–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. 1982. Infinitival Subjects, Government and Abstract Case. Linguistic Inquiry 13:323–327.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. 1983. Functional and Anaphoric Control. Linguistic Inquiry 14:641–674.Google Scholar
Moltmann, Friederike. 2006. Generic One, Arbitrary PRO, and the First Person. Natural Language Semantics 14:257–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Jerry L. 1970. On the Criterion of Identity for Noun Phrase Deletion. In Proceedings of CLS 6, ed. Campbell, Mary Ann, James, Lindholm, Alice, Davison et al., 380–389. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Mucha, Anne, and Hartmann, Jutta M. 2022. (Non)Attitude Verbs and Control Shift: Evidence from German. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 26, ed. Gutzmann, Daniel and Repp, Sophie, 622–640. Konstanz: University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
Ndayiragije, Juvénal. 2012. On Raising Out of Control. Linguistic Inquiry 43:275–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1984. Control and the Thematic Domain. Language 60:215–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 2014. Reflexive Binding: Awareness and Empathy from a Syntactic Point of View. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 23:157–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noyer, Rolf. 1992. Features, Positions and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Pak, Miok, Portner, Paul, and Zanuttini, Raffaella. 2008. Agreement in Promissive, Imperative, and Exhortative Clauses. Korean Linguistics 14:157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, Hazel. 2013. The Sense of Self: Topics in the Semantics of De Se Expressions. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Pearson, Hazel. 2016. The Semantics of Partial Control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34:691–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, Hazel. 2018. Counterfactual de se. Semantics and Pragmatics 11. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.3711.3762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, Hazel, and Roeper, Tom. 2022. Excluded Entailments and the De Se/De Re Partition. Inquiry 65:858–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Percus, Orin, and Sauerland, Uli. 2003. On the LFs of Attitude Reports. In Proceedings of Sinn and Bedeutung 7, ed. Weisberger, Matthias, 228–242. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
Pitteroff, Marcel, Alexiadou, Artemis, Darby, Jeannique, and Fischer, Silke. 2017. On Partial Control in German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 20:139–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitteroff, Marcel, and Sheehan, Michelle. 2018. The Case for Fake Partial Control in French and German In Proceedings of NELS 48, eds. Hucklebridge, Sherry and Nelson, Max, 245–258. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Pietraszko, Asia. 2021. Backward Control without A-movement or φ-agreement. In Proceedings of NELS 51, eds. Farinella, Alessa and Hill, Angelica, 139–152. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Pires, Acrisio. 2007. The Derivation of Clausal Gerunds. Syntax 10:165–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitteroff, Marcel, and Schäfer, Florian. 2019. Implicit Control Cross-Linguistically. Language 95:136–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, Maria. 2013. Raising and Control. In The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax, ed. den Dikken, Marcel, 577–606. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, Maria, and Potsdam, Eric. 2002. Backward Control. Linguistic Inquiry 33:245–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1970. On Coreferential Complement Subject Deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 1:439–500.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1974. On Raising. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M., and Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1988. Expletive Noun Phrases in Subcategorized Positions. Linguistic Inquiry 19:635–670.Google Scholar
Potsdam, Eric. 2009. Malagasy Backward Object Control. Language 85:754–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potsdam, Eric, and Haddad, Youssef A. 2017. Control Phenomena. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, ed. Everaert, Martin and van Riemsdijk, Henk. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leach, Jeoffrey, and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Reed, Lisa A. 2018. Against Control by Implicit Passive Agents. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 14: Selected Papers from the 46th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), ed. Repetti, Lori and Ordóñez, Francisco, 279–292. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. On Chain Formation. In Syntax and Semantics 19: The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics, ed. Borer, Hagit, 65–95. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. In Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, ed. Haegeman, Liliane, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues, Cilene. 2004. Impoverished Morphology and A-movement out of Case Domains. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, Cilene. 2007. Agreement and Flotation in Partial and Inverse Partial Control Configurations. In New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising, ed. Davies, William D. and Dubinsky, Stanley, 213–229. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Rooryck, Johan. 2000. Configurations of Sentential Complementation: Perspectives from Romance Languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rooryck, Johan. 2007. Control via Selection. In New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising, ed. Davies, William D. and Dubinsky, Stanley, 281–292. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter. 1967. The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter. 1970. A Principle Governing Deletion in English Sentential Complementation. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, ed. Jacobs, Roderick and Rosenbaum, Peter, 220–229. Waltham, MA: Ginn-Blaisdell.Google Scholar
Runner, Jeffrey T. 2006. Lingering Challenges to the Raising-to-Object and Object-Control Constructions. Syntax 9:193–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Růžička, Rudolph. 1999. Control in Grammar and Pragmatics: A Cross-Linguistic Study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Safir, Ken. 1985. Syntactic Chains. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Safir, Ken. 1993. Perception, Selection, and Structural Economy. Natural Language Semantics 2:47–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Safir, Ken. 2004. Person, Context and Perspective. Rivista di Linguistica 16:107–153.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan, and Pollard, Carl. 1991. An Integrated Theory of Complement Control. Language 67:63–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satik, Deniz. 2019. Control Is Not Movement: Evidence from Overt PRO in Ewe. Ms., Harvard University.Google Scholar
Sato, Yosuke. 2011. On the Movement Theory of Control: Voices from Standard Indonesian. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 56:267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2003. A Plea for Monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26:29–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2011. Indexicality and De Se Reports. In Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, ed. von Heusinger, Klaus, Maienborn, Claudia, and Portner, Paul, 1561–1604. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Seo, Saetbyol, and Hoe, Semoon. 2015. Agreement of Point-of-Viewer and a Jussive Subject. Studies in Generative Grammar 25:1–34.Google Scholar
Sharvit, Yael. 2011. Covaluation and Unexpected BT Effects. Journal of Semantics 28:55–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle. 2012. A New Take on Partial Control: Defective Thematic Intervention. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 6:1–47.Google Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle. 2014. Partial Control in the Romance Languages: The Covert Comitative Analysis. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2012: Papers from ‘Going Romance’ Leuven 2012, eds. Lahousse, Karen and Marzo, Stefania, 181–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle. 2018a. Control of Inflected Infinitives in European Portuguese. In Complement Clauses in Portuguese: Syntax and Acquisition, eds. Gonçalves, Anabela and Santos, Ana Lúcia, 29–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle. 2018b. On the Difference Between Exhaustive and Partial Control. In Null Suibjects in generative Grammar: A Synchronic and Diachronic Perspective, eds. Cognola, Federica and Casalicchio, Jan, 141–170. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Einar F., and Wood, Jim. 2021. On the Implicit Argument of Icelandic Indirect Causatives. Linguistic Inquiry 52:579–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór A. 2008. The Case of PRO. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26:403–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór A. 2011. Conditions on Argument Drop. Linguisic Inquiry 42:267–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sisovics, Milena. 2018. Embedded Jussives as Instances of Control: The Case of Mongolian and Korean. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Song, Jae Jung. 2001. Linguistic Typology: Morphology and Syntax. London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Speas, Margaret. 2004. Evidentiality, Logophoricity and Syntactic Representation of Ptagmatic Features. Lingua 114:255–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speas, Margaret. 2006. Economy, Agreement, and the Representation of Null Arguments. In Arguments and Agreement, ed. Ackema, Peter, Brandt, Patrick, Schoorlemmer, Maaike, and Weerman, Fred, 35–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stegovec, Adrian. 2019. Perspectival Control and Obviation in Directive Clauses. Natural Language Semantics 27:47–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, Tamina. 2010. Control in Centred Worlds. Journal of Semantics 27:409–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiebels, Barbara. 2007. Towards a Typology of Complement Control. ZAS Working Papers in Linguistics 47: 1–59. https://doi.org/10.21248/zaspil.47.2007.344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiebels, Barbara. 2015. Control. In Syntax – Theory and Analysis, ed. Kiss, Tibor and Alexiadou, Artemis, 412–446. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sundaresan, Sandhya. 2014. Making Sense of Silence: Finiteness and the (OC) PRO vs. pro Distinction. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32:59–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundaresan, Sandhya. 2018. Perspective Is Syntactic: Evidence from Anaphora. Glossa 3(1):128:1–40.Google Scholar
Sundaresan, Sandhya. 2021. Shifty Attitudes: Indexical Shift versus Perspectival Anaphora. Annual Review of Linguistics 7:235–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundaresan, Sandhya, and McFadden, Thomas. 2009. Subject Distribution in Tamil and Other Languages: Selection vs. Case. Journal of South Asian Linguistics 2:5–34.Google Scholar
Swierskia, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 2009. Overt Nominative Subjects in Infinitival Complements: Data, Diagnostics, and Preliminary Analyses. In NYU Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 2: Papers in Syntax, ed. Irwin, Patricia and Maldonado, Violeta Vasquéz Rojas. New York: New York University.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1979. On Complementation in Icelandic. New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
Truswell, Robert. 2013. Reconstruction, Control and Movement. In Syntax and Its Limits, ed. Folli, Raffaella R., Sevdali, Christina, Truswell, Robert, 44–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uegaki, Wataru. 2011. Controller Shift in Centered-World Semantics. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
Ussery, Cherlon. 2008. What It Means to Agree: The Behavior of Case and Phi Features in Icelandic Control. In Proceedings of WCCFL 26, ed. Chang, Charles B. and Haynie, Hannah J., 480–488. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
van Urk, Coppe. 2013. Visser’s Generalization: The Syntax of Control and the Passive. Linguistic Inquiry 44:168–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido J. 1994. PRO-legomena. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim. 2003. Feature Deletion under Semantic Binding. In Proceedings of NELS 33, ed. Kadowaki, Makoto and Kawahara, Shigeto, 377–403. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Vinka, Mikael. 2022. Two Types of Null Subjects in Saami, South. In Null Subjects in Slavic and Finno-Ugric: Licensing, Structure and Typology, eds. Dalmi, Gréte, Tsedryk, Egor and Cegłowski, Piotr, 307–346. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 2010. What ‘You’ and ‘I’ Mean to Each Other: Person Indexicals, Self-Ascription and Theory of Mind. Language 86:332–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, Ken, and Culicover, Peter. 1980. Formal Principles of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
White, Aaron S., and Grano, Thomas A. 2014. An Experimental Investigation of Partial Control. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18, ed. Urtzi Etxeberria, Anamaria Fălăuş, Irurtzun, Aritz, and Leferman, Bryan, 469–486. Konstanz: University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, Robert. 1971. Complement Subject Deletion and Subset Relations. Linguistic Inquiry 2:575–584.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11:203–238.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1992. Adjunct Control. In Control and Grammar, ed. Larson, Richard, Iatridou, Sabine, Lahiri, Utpal, and Higginbotham, James, 297–322. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina, and Heim, Johannes. 2016. The Syntax of Confirmationals: A Neo-performative Analysis. In Outside the Clause: Form and Function of Extra-Clausal Constituents, ed. Kaltenböck, Gunther, Keizer, Evelien, and Lohmann, Arne, 305–340. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Jim. 2012. Against the Movement Theory of Control: Another Argument from Icelandic. Linguistic Inquiry 43:322–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woods, Rebecca. 2021. Towards a Model of the Syntax – Discourse Interface: A Syntactic Analysis of Please. English Language & Linguistics 25:121–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi. 1999. Modal Verbs Must Be Raising Verbs. In Proceedings of WCCFL 18, ed. Bird, Sonya, Carnie, Andrew, Haugen, Jason D., and Norquest, Peter, 599–612. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2002. Semantic vs. Syntactic Control. In Proceedings of the 15th Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax, ed. Zwart, Jan-Wouter and Abraham, Werner, 93–127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2003. Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2015. Restructuring Cross-Linguistically. In Proceedings of the NELS 45, ed. Bui, Thuy and Özyıldız, Deniz, 227–240. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2019. Cross-Clausal A-dependencies. In Proceedings of CLS 54, ed. Ronai, Eszter, Stigliano, Laura, and Sun, Yenan, 585–604. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Xu, Leijiong. 1986. Towards a Lexical-Thematic Theory of Control. Linguistic Review 5:345–376.Google Scholar
Yoshimoto, Keisuke. 2013. The Syntax of Japanese Tokoro-Clauses: Against Control Analyses. Lingua 127:39–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanuttini, Rafaella. 2008. Encoding the Addressee in the Syntax: Evidence from English Imperative Subjects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26:185–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanuttini, Rafaella, Pak, Miok, and Portner, Paul. 2012. A Syntactic Analysis of Interpretive Restrictions on Imperative, Promissive, and Exhortative Subjects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30:1231–1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zu, Vera. 2018. Discourse Participants and the Structural Representation of Context. PhD dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Control
  • Idan Landau, Tel-Aviv University
  • Online ISBN: 9781009243124
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Control
  • Idan Landau, Tel-Aviv University
  • Online ISBN: 9781009243124
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Control
  • Idan Landau, Tel-Aviv University
  • Online ISBN: 9781009243124
Available formats
×