Inflected infinitives in BP and the structure of nonfinite complements Marcello Modesto Universidade de So Paulo

1.

Introduction

This paper continues the discussion in Modesto (2010, to appear) about the existence of nonfinite inflection (NI from now on) in Brazilian Portuguese (BP) and its use in control structures. Modesto (2010) showed that NI is used in BP to give rise to partial control (PC) readings in control structures and Modesto (to appear) showed that NI is also possible in control structures with an exhaustive control (EC) interpretation. Both papers pointed out that the use of NI in BP presents a serious problem for theories that take control to be a side effect of A-movement out of nonfinite clauses (Hornstein 1999, et seq., among others). In this paper, I will tackle another angle of the issue, related to the fact that some predicates cannot take an inflected nonfinite complement: this seems to indicate that such complements are truncated below TP, therefore having no room for NI. In fact, as it will be shown, there is evidence that nonfinite complements of EC verbs in BP are in fact truncated, as argued for German by Wurmbrand 2001. European Portuguese (EP) will not be dealt with and will be mentioned only when the contrast between the two dialects becomes relevant for the discussion. Briefly speaking, NI in EP is not relevant for the discussion of control structures because NI in EP seems to be able to license null referential pronouns and, therefore, to be more akin to finite clauses (see Raposo 1987 for an analysis of NI in EP based on structural Case).

Section 2 lays out the BP data, summarizing the discussion in Modesto (2010, to appear). Then, section 3 discuss the complement of verbs forming the EC class in BP and concludes that such complements are smaller than propositional complements. Section 4 concludes the paper.

The BP data

In the generative linguistics literature on inflected infinitives, it is customary to encounter the claim that nonfinite inflection does not appear in subject control structures (see Negro 1986, Quicoli 1996, Pires 2001 and Miller 2002, among others). Miller (2002:77) explicitly says that, in both EP and BP, PRO is invariably matched with the P[lain] I[infinitive] in subject control structures (although he himself inadvertently? presents a subject control structure with an inflected infinitive on p. 85). All of the authors exemplify the restriction on inflected infinitives in subject control structures with verbs like querer to want and tentar to try, which, in fact, preclude verbal inflection in their complements (as will be shown below). However, a more careful examination of the data reveals that inflected infinitives are normally occurring in the complement of a wide variety of control verbs in BP. The use of inflected infinitives in the complement of epistemic and declarative verbs was noted by Lemle (1984), who discusses BP examples

like (01) below.1 Lemle, however, does not claim or show evidence that those structures involve obligatory control. Such evidence has been presented in Modesto, to appear. (01) a. 1984: 183) b. 1984: 184) As italianas sabem ser(em) encantadoras. (Lemle

the italians.FEM know be-INF(-3PL) charming Italian women know that they are charming/how to be charming. Os professores admitiram ganhar(em) pouco. (Lemle the teachers admitted earn-INF(-3PL) little The teachers admitted to earn little money.

2.1

Exhaustive and partial control

As discussed in Modesto 2010, control verbs in BP are clearly divided in the two classes identified by Landau (2000, 20004) the EC class, and the PC class. The two classes are almost equivalent in BP and English: the EC class includes modal, aspectual, implicative and knowledge verbs, whereas the PC class includes desiderative, factive, epistemic and declarative predicates. For ease of exposition, I will refer throughout this paper to the classes below. Only a few verbs are used to exemplify each class. (02) Verb classes a. Propositional class: includes epistemic, declarative and factive verbs like saber know, ignorar ignore, acreditar believe, suspeitar suspect, supor suppose, reconhecer recognize, perceber realize, admitir admit, dizer say, afirmar claim, affirm, reclamar complain, contar tell, lamentar regret, odiar loathe, apreciar enjoy, detestar hate, etc.

Throughout this paper, infinitives will be glossed by INF, followed by person (1, 2 or 3) and number (SG or PL) when inflected.

b. c.

d. e.

Desiderative class: includes verbs like preferir prefer, decidir decide, planejar plan, resolver decide, prometer promise, escolher choose, esperar expect, etc. Implicative class: includes verbs like ousar dare, conseguir manage, esquecer forget, evitar avoid, lembrar remember, etc. Verbs like tentar try, aprender learn, ameaar threat and saber know how will also be included in this class, although not having an implicative semantics. Aspectual class: includes verbs like parar stop, comear start and continuar continue. Modal class: includes verbs like precisar need, poder can, poder may, dever must.

Like in English, all the verbs in classes a and b are PC predicates and the verbs in classes c, d and e are EC predicates. However, unlike in English, as discussed in Modesto (2010), PC interpretations are available in BP not only with collective predicates like gather and meet, but with any verb, since, in BP, such readings are marked by a plural inflection on the nonfinite verb, which is controlled by a matrix DP marked for singular: (03) a. b. cncer. the scientist cancer c. The scientist believes that they have found the cure of cancer. A presidente1 resolveu PRO1+ trabalharem tambm nos feriados. the president decided work-INF-3PL also in.the holidays The president decided (for them) to work during the holidays too. believes have-INF-3PL discovered the cure of.the O morador1 disse PRO1+ estarem sendo vtimas de assaltos. the dweller said be-INF-3PL being victims of robberies The dweller said they have been victims of robberies. O cientista1 acredita PRO1+ terem descoberto a

cura do

The fact that the empty category in (03) is controlled (PRO with a PC interpretation) and not a referential null pronoun is clear from the discussion in Modesto 2010, and the data below:

(04) a. recent

context: President Dilma met with So Paulo state governor to discuss the

accusations of fraud. *No encontro, Dilma reclamou pro no terem sido respondidas ainda. in.the meeting Dilma complained not have-INF-3PL been answered yet In the meeting, Dilma complained that the accusations had not been answered yet. b. ainda. after yet After 20 minutes, Dilma complained that they had not been served yet. In (04a), the nonfinite inflection cannot license a referential null pronoun. This should not be surprising since BP does not licenses referential null subjects even in finite contexts, except under strict conditions (see Moreira da Silva 1984, Galves 1993, Figueiredo Silva 1994, Duarte 1995, Kato 1999, Modesto 2000, 2008, the collection of articles in Kato and Negro 2000 and Rodrigues 2004).2 Overt subjects are likewise not licensed by nonfinite inflection in the relevant contexts:3 of 20 minutes the Dilma complained not have-INF-3PL been served context: President Dilma and other female government officials have been waiting for the waiter in a restaurant. Depois de 20 minutos, a Dilma reclamou PRO1+ no terem sido atendidas

The sentences in (i) below are, therefore, ungrammatical in BP (contra Pires 2001), although similar structures are grammatical in EP: (i) a. *Nossos1 amigos detestam pro1 perdermos as coisas deles. our friends hate lose-INF-1PL the things of-them. Our friends hate when we lose their belongings. b. *O Pedro convenceu os nossos1 pais a pro1 cursarmos engenharia. the Pedro convinced the our parents PREP study-INF-1PL engineering Pedro convinced our parents that we should study engineering.

Factive verbs arguably accept overt subjects in their complement, its grammaticality varying depending on the choice of the matrix predicate (see (i) below). The fact that nonfinite complements with overt subject are still acceptable in BP under the verb lamentar regret lead Modesto (2010) to consider such structures grammatical in BP (see also the discussion in Figueiredo Silva 1994). Here, I have disregarded this problem and lumped factives together with propositional verbs. (i) a. A presidente lamentou os ministros se demitirem. the predident regretted the ministers SELF resign-INF-3PL b. ?A presidente detestou os ministros se demitirem. the predident hated the ministers SELF resign-INF-3PL

(05) *A presidente disse/acredita/resolveu os ministros serem/terem sido exonerados. the president said/believes/decided the ministers be-INF-3PL/have-INF-3PL been discharged The president said/believes/decided that the ministers were/had been discharged. As mentioned above, the other classes of verbs do not allow PC interpretations, therefore, plural markings on the nonfinite verb leads to ungrammaticality: (06) a. b. c. Brasil. the president needs Brazil The president needs to eradicate hunger in Brazil. eradicate-INF-3PL with the hunger in.the *A presidente1 consegui PRO1+ se elegerem. the president managed SELF elect-INF-3PL The president managed (for her cabinet) to be elected. *A presidente1 comeou a PRO1+ trabalharem. the president started PREP work-INF-3PL The president started working. *A presidente1 precisa PRO1+ acabarem com a

fome

no

2.1.1 Object control structures

Object control structures also allow PC interpretations triggered by plural marking on the nonfinite verb, as seen in (07a) below. The class of object control predicates includes verbs like convencer convince, instigar entice, induzir induce, as well as directive predicates and verbs of influence and authorization (exigir to demand, instruir, to instruct, aconselhar to advice, recomendar to recommend, permitir to allow, autorizar to authorize, sugerir to sugest, among others), which may be used with an implicit argument (see (07c)):
c. ??A presidente aceitou os ministros se demitirem. the predident accepted the ministers SELF resign-INF-3PL The president regretted/hated/accepted that the ministers have resigned.

(07)

a. b. c.

O Pedro1 convenceu a Dani2 a PRO1+2/2+/*1+/*3 viajarem

amanh. the Pedro convinced the Dani PREP travel-INF-3PL tomorrow Pedro convinced Dani that they should travel tomorrow. A prefeitura autorizou os moradores a cortarem as rvores. the city.hall authorized the residents PREP cut-INF-3PL the trees The city hall authorized the residents to cut the trees. A prefeitura autorizou cortarem as rvores. the city.hall authorized cut-INF-3PL the trees The city hall authorized people to cut trees.

Just like in subject control structures, the empty category may not refer to salient discourse entities and overt subjects are not allowed: (08)

*O Pedro1 convenceu a Dani2 a os meninos viajarem de carro. the Pedro convinced the Dani PREP the boys travel-INF-3PL by car Pedro convinced Dani that the boys should travel by car.

2.1.2 Interrogative predicates

Landau (2000, 2004) includes interrogative predicates in the PC class. However, the status of interrogative complements is not unquestionable. Most studies classify them as non-obligatory control contexts due to their compatibility with arbitrary control readings (see Williams 1980, Chomsky 1981, Bresnan 1982, Manzini 1983, Bouchard 1984, Koster 1984, Martin 1996, Wurmbrand 2001). Landaus argumentation in favor of treating interrogative complements as partial (obligatory) control is based on the fact that, contrary to EC complements, collective predicates are allowed in interrogative complements (see (09a)), and that an arbitrary control reading is, in fact, impossible (09b), which is made clear by the contrast in (09c-d). Since PRO necessarily includes the

matrix controller in its reference, disjoint reference effects are imposed in (09c) by Binding Condition B. (09) a. b. c. d. John1 wondered whether PRO1+ to apply together for the grant. *John1 guessed where PROarb not to smoke. *Sue1 asked what to buy her1 in Rome. Sue1 asked what to buy herself1/her1 sister in Rome.

Convincing as Landaus arguments may be, the status of interrogative complements as PC in BP is even more doubtful. As seen in (10a), interrogative complements do not allow collective verbs as easily as in English. If those verbs are allowed, they cannot inflect for plural, since nonfinite inflection is banned from such complements with any verb, as seen in (10b), which is unlike other PC complements. The condition B examples are difficult to be constructed in BP, since most verbs used by Landau are obligatorily reflexive in BP and the verb comprar buy allows correference between the subject and a pronoun in object position even in trivial examples (cf. A Maria comprou um sapato pra ela em Roma Mary bought herself shoes in Rome, literally Maria bought a shoe for her in Rome). (10) a. b. ??A presidente no sabe quando PRO se reunir. the president not knows when SELF gather-INF The president does not know when to gather. *A presidente no sabe o que PRO fazerem. the president not know what do-INF-3PL The president doesnt know what to do.

Since the status of interrogative complements in BP is not clear, I leave them out of the present discussion to be discussed in some future opportunity.

2.2

Inflection in EC reading contexts

As discussed in Modesto, to appear, the EC and the PC classes also differ in contexts in which only an EC reading is possible, i.e. when the matrix controller is marked for plural. The EC class does not allow for inflection of the nonfinite verb, whereas the PC class optionally allows it:4 (11) a. b. c. *Os viajantes1 tentaram PRO1 voltarem para casa. the travellers tried go.back-INF-3PL to home The travellers tried to go back home. *Os viajantes1 comearam a PRO1 voltarem para casa. the travellers started PREP go.back-INF-3PL to home The travellers started to go back home. *Os viajantes1 precisam PRO1 voltarem para casa. the travellers need go.back-INF-3PL to home The travellers need to go back home. Os motoristas dizem estarem sendo vtimas de assaltos. the drivers say be-INF-3PL being victims of robberies The drivers say they have been victims of robberies. Os cientistas acreditam ter(em) descoberto a cura do cncer. the scientists believe have-INF-3PL found the cure of.the cancer Scientists believe that they have discovered the cure of cancer. Os judeus1 voluntariamente decidiram PRO1 voltarem para l. the jews voluntarily decided go.back-INF-3PL to there The jews decided to go back there voluntarily.

(12)

a. b. c.

Modesto (to appear) shows that the structures in (12) are in fact control structures: they only allow de se readings; they only allow sloppy readings in VP ellipsis contexts;

In Modesto, to appear, inflected complements of desiderative predicates in EC reading contexts are judged to be ungrammatical. The different judgments shown here reflect the amount of inflected control structures under desiderative verbs found in Google searches, which indicates that such structures are, in fact, grammatical.

referential pro and overt DPs are not allowed in the subject position of the nonfinite clause.5 Nonfinite inflection also commonly appears in object control structures (which are, uncontroversially, control structures cf. Negro 1986). Example a below has an EC reading; example b, a PC reading:6 (13) a. carro. car b. Marias father convinced the boys to travel by car. O pai da Maria convenceu ela1 a PRO1+ viajarem de carro. the father of.the Maria convinced her PREP travel-INF-3PL by car Marias father convinced her (for them) to travel by car. O pai da Maria convenceu os meninos1 a PRO1 viajarem
PREP

de

the father of.the Maria convinced the boys

travel-INF-3PL by

Another context in which nonfinite inflection is optionally allowed is in clausal complements of nouns. Once again, there is evidence that such structures involve control: overt subjects and null referential pronouns are not allowed in the nonfinite complement and only sloppy readings obtain (if, for instance, (14a) is continued by and the Russians were the second).
5

As seen in (i) below, differently from EP (cf. Raposo 1987) overt subjects are not allowed in the complement of propositional predicates in BP with or without auxiliary inversion. Left dislocated and whmoved subjects are allowed, however. A detailed discussion of these interesting facts is beyond the scope of this paper. (i) a. *O Pedro acredita (os estudantes) terem (os estudantes) passado. the Pedro believes the students have- INF-3PL passed Pedro believes the students to have passed. b. Que estudantes o Pedro acredita terem passado? which students the Pedro believes have- INF-3PL passed Which students does Pedro believe to have passed? c. O Pedro acredita terem passado todos os estudantes que fizeram a prova. the Pedro believes have- INF-3PL passed all the students that made the test Pedro believes that all the students who took the test passed.

The interpretation of PRO in (13b) i.e. the people who are travelling by car may be Maria and her father or Maria and some other person (or group) salient from discourse.

10

(14)

a. b.

Os americanos foram os primeiros a pisarem na lua. the Americans were the first PREP step-INF-3PL on.the moon The Americans were the first ones to walk on the moon. Os brasileiros foram os nicos a ganharem cinco copas do mundo. the Brazilians were the only PREP win-INF-3PL five cups of.the world The Brazilians were the only ones to win the world cup 5 times.

Raising complements from which the subject has raised cannot be inflected:7 (15) a. b. c. d. e. *Os meninos parecem gostarem da Maria. the boys seem to.like.3PL of.the Maria The boys seem to like Maria. *Os meninos custaram a sarem. the boys took.long PREP to.leave.3pl The boys took a long time to leave. *Os meninos levaram trs horas pra sarem. the boys took three hours PREP to.leave.3PL The boys took three hours to leave. *Os meninos s faltam receberem o dinheiro do patro. the boys only miss get-INF-3PL the money from.the boss The only thing missing is for the boys to get the money from their boss. *Esses meninos perigam bombarem de ano. these boys are.in.danger fail-INF-3PL of year These boys are in danger of failing the school year.

With the exception of parecer seem, which does not allow a non-raised nonfinite complement, the nonfinite complement of all raising verbs is obligatorily inflected if the subject has not raised: (16) a. b. c. *Parece os meninos gostarem da Maria. seems the boys like-INF-3PL of.the Maria It seems that the boys like Maria. Custou pros meninos sarem. cost for.the boys leave-INF-3PL It took a long time for the boys to leave. Levou trs horas pros meninos sarem. took three hours for.the boys leave-INF-3PL It took three hours for the boys to leave.

All sentences in (15) are grammatical if the nonfinite verb is not inflected.

11

d. e.

S falta os meninos receberem o dinheiro. only miss the boys get-INF-3PL the money The only thing missing is for the boys to get the money. Periga esses meninos bombarem de ano. is.in.danger these boys fail-INF-3PL of year There is danger that these boys will fail the school year.

The sentences in (16) above seem to follow a well-defined pattern: every time an overt subject appears in a nonfinite clause in BP, the nonfinite verb is obligatorily inflected. Besides complements of raising predicates from which the subject has failed to raise, nonfinite clauses with overt subjects are attested in BP as subject clauses, adjunct and purpose clauses, complements of perception and causative predicates and in the complement of the verb esperar wait. In all these cases, NI is obligatory:8 (17) a. b. c. d. e. f. Vai ser difcil eles aprovarem a proposta. 9 goes to.be difficult they approve-INF-3PL the proposal It is unlikely that they will approve the proposal. Eu entrei em casa sem os meninos verem. I entered in house without the boys see-INF-3PL I got in the house without the boys seeing me/it. Eu comprei esse livro pros meninos lerem. I bought this book for.the boys read-INF-3PL I bought this book for the boys to read. Eu vi os meninos quebrarem a mesa. I saw the boys break-INF-3PL the table I saw the boys breaking the table. Eu fiz os meninos estudarem. I made the boys study-INF-3PL I made the boys study. Eu estou esperando as meninas chegarem. I am waiting the girls arrive-INF-3PL I am waiting for the girls to arrive.

This is true of Standard BP, the dialect that retains inflected infinitives (see Modesto, to appear, for a discussion on the difference between Standard and Popular BP).
9

Raposo (1987) mentions that non-extraposed subject clauses are slightly degraded in EP, but that is unrelated to the inflected character of the infinitive. That does not seem to be the case in BP, in which subject clauses are extraposed or not depending on the discourse articulation of topic and focus.

12

Controlled adjunct and purpose clauses cannot be inflected: (18) a. b. Os meninos compraram esse livro pra ler(*em) na praia. the boys bought this book for read-INF-(*3PL) on.the beach The boys bought this book to read on the beach. Os meninos saram sem jantar(*em). the boys went.out without eat-INF-(*3PL) The boys went out without eating.

Summarizing the information in this section, it can be seen that: a. Nonfinite inflection is obligatory: (i) in nonfinite clauses with a lexical subject (i.e. subject/adjunct/purpose clauses; the complement of perception verbs, causative predicates and the verb esperar to wait; non-raised complements of raising verbs). (ii) in controlled complements of factive/propositional/desiderative and object-control predicates with a PC reading (except when collective verbs like gather are used). b. Nonfinite inflection is optional: (i) (ii) in object control complements with EC reading. in subject control complements of propositional/factive/desiderative predicates with EC reading. (iii) c. in controlled nonfinite complements of nominals.

Nonfinite inflection is impossible: (i) (ii) (iii) in interrogative, modal, aspectual and implicative complements. in raising complements from which the subject has raised. in controlled adjuncts and purpose clauses.

13

3.

The complement of EC predicates

The distribution of NI in BP breaks down the correlation between plain infinitives and PRO, on one hand, and inflected infinitives and pro/lexical subjects, on the other. It shows that NI cannot be related to Case assigning, although it does bear on the licensing of overt subjects. This discussion obviously escapes the space limitations of this paper (but see Sigurdsson 1991, 2008 and Landau 2004, 2006 for arguments in favor of the dissociation of control and lack of Case, and McFadden and Sundaresan, to appear, and Sitaridou 2006 for arguments in favor of the dissociation of phi-features and Case assignment). What can be said for sure so far is that, as discussed in Modesto 2010, to appear, the BP data presents an insurmountable problem for theories of control based on Amovement, as far as the PC class is concerned. Considering the EC class, on the other hand, it would still be possible to assume that such structures are derived by movement (as the existence of backward control in Greek seems to indicate; cf. Alexiadou et al. 2010). Let us assume that A-movement is impossible out of propositional and desiderative complements because those complements are CPs. Let us also assume that NI does not occur in EC complements because the functional layer is missing in those complements and that movement is allowed out of them for exactly that reason. Then, we would have an argument in favor of movement into theta-positions as originally proposed by bo kovi (1994) and also in favor of the analysis of control involving restructuring, as proposed by Wurmbrand (2001). In fact, BP does offer some evidence that the

14

complement of EC verbs is smaller than PC complements. The argument involves the NPI element nunca never, interaction with adverbs and quantifier scope. Firstly, we note that an NPI like nunca in BP is licensed by a clause-mate negation in both finite and nonfinite contexts (i.e. in the complement of a desiderative verb like decidir to decide: (19) a. b. c. *A Lina disse que ela sai nunca. the Lina said that she leaves never Lina said that she never goes out. *A Lina no disse que ela sai nunca. the Lina not said that she leaves never Lina didnt say that she never goes out. A Lina disse que ela no sai nunca. the Lina said that she not leaves never Lina said that she never goes out. *A Lina decidiu sair nunca. the Lina decided leave-INF never Lina decided never to go out. *A Lina no decidiu sair nunca. the Lina not decided leave-INF never Lina decided never to go out. A Lina decidiu no sair nunca (mais). the Lina decided not leave-INF never (more) Lina decided never to go out again.

(20)

a. b. c.

In the complement of EC verbs, on the other hand, matrix negation is enough to license nunca: (21) a. b. c. A Lina no tenta agradar nunca sua me. The Lina not tries to.please never to her mother Lina never tries to please her mother. A Lina no comea a estudar nunca. the Lina not start PREP to.study never Lina never starts to study. Os meninos no precisam trabalhar nunca. the boys not need to.work never The boys never need to work.

15

Negation is licensed in the complement of EC predicates, but that is probably constituent negation, since that negation does not license an NPI: (22) a. b. c. Os meninos tentam no atrapalhar (*nunca). the boys try not to.be-in-the-way never The boys try not to be in the way. Os meninos comearam a no estudar (*nunca). the boys started PREP not to.study never The boys started not to study. Os meninos podem no trabalhar (??nunca). The boys may not to.work never The boys may not work.

Another difference between EC and PC complements is related to licensing of low adverbs. EC complements do not license a low adverb, whereas PC complements do: (23) a. b. A Dani reconheceu / descobriu / odeia j falar Alemo. the Dani acknowledged/found.out/hate already to.speak German Dani acknowledged to speak German already. *A Dani conseguiu / comeou a / tentou j falar Alemo. the Dani managed / started to / tried already to.speak German Dani managed /started / tried to speak German already.

The interpretation of universal quantifiers in PC and EC complements is also different. While universal quantifiers can take wide scope outside the nonfinite complement of EC complements, these readings are impossible when the quantifier appears in PC complement. Example (24a) is ambiguous: it may mean that for every x (x a girls in his class), Pedro tried to travel with x, or it may mean that Pedro tried to travel with the group of girls in his class. Sentence (24b), on the other hand, lacks the first reading: it may not mean that for every x, Pedro decided to travel with x. (24) a. O Pedro tentou viajar com todas as meninas da classe. The Pedro tried to.travel with all the girls in.the class Pedro tried to travel with all/each girl in the class.

16

b.

O Pedro decidiu viajar com todas as meninas da classe. The Pedro decided to.travel with all the girls in.the class Pedro decided to travel with all/*each girl in the class.

The data reviewed above provides considerable evidence that EC complements are truncated (restructuring, in the sense of Wurmbrand 2001). Assuming that EC are VPs, we would explain the impossibility of NI in EC complements. In that case, control into EC complements could be derived either by movement (as in Bo kovi 1994) or by Agree of a PRO category sitting on the edge of VP. Since PRO would still be required in control structures involving PC predicates, the second option seems more economical. However, the existence of backward control in Greek provides strong evidence for a movement analysis of control with EC verbs,10 which may indicate that movement is possible exactly because those complements are truncated. The problem is that, exactly in Greek, the language that provides evidence in favor of control structures involving movement, there seems to be no evidence that EC complements are truncated versions of PC complements: in both, the verb is inflected for person and number and the particle na precedes it. This and related questions are left open here.

Concluding remarks

In this brief discussion, I have shown that two commonly made assumptions are mistaken. Inflected infinitives do not necessarily correlate with pro/lexical subjects and subject controlled infinitives may be inflected. The presence of inflection in control

It is important to note that backward control only takes place with OC verbs in Greek, a class that includes all and only the EC predicates in Romance and Germanic languages (cf. Landau 2004 and Alexiadou et al. 2010).

10

17

structures raises serious problems related to Case assignment, overt DP licensing and the relation between control and agreement inflection, that I could not discuss here in any detail. I undertook a more modest aim: I have provided evidence that PC and EC complements are different and that such difference seems to be related to the restructuring character of EC complements (in the sense of Wurmbrand 2001). Many questions remain unanswered.

References

Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, Gianina Iord chioaia and Mihaela Marchis. No objections to backward control. In Movement theory of control (Linguistik aktuell 154). Hornstein, Norbert and Maria Polinsky (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 89-117 Bo kovi , eljko. 1994. D-Structure, -Criterion, and Movement into -Positions.

Linguistic Analysis 24: 247-286. Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Control and Complementation. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 343-434. Bouchard, Denis. 1984. On the content of empty categories. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Duarte, Maria Eugnia L. 1995, A perda do princpio Evite Pronome no portugus brasileiro. Doctoral dissertation, UNICAMP, Campinas. Figueiredo Silva, Maria Cristina. 1994. La position sujet en Portugais Brsilien. Doctoral dissertation, Universit de Genve.

18

Galves, Charlotte. 1993. O enfraquecimento da concordncia no portugus brasileiro. In Portugus brasileiro. Uma viagem diacrnica, Ian Roberts and Mary Kato (eds.), 387408. Campinas: Editora da UNICAMP. Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30:69-96. Kato, Mary. 1999. Strong and weak pronominals in the null subject parameter. Probus 11:1-27. Kato, Mary, and Esmeralda V. Negro (eds.). 2000. Brazilian Portuguese and the null subject parameter. Frankfurt: Vervuert-Iberoamericana. Koster, Jan. 1984. On Binding and Control. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 417-459. Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of Control: Structure and Meaning in Infinitival Constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Landau, Idan. 2004. The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22:811-877. Landau, Idan. 2006. Severing the distribution of PRO from Case. Syntax 9:153-170. Lemle, Mriam. 1984. Anlise Sinttica. So Paulo, tica. Manzini, M. Rita. 1983. On Control and Control Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 421-446. Martin, Roger A. 1996. A Minimalist Theory of PRO and Control, PhD dissertation, UCONN. McFadden, Thomas and Sandhya Sundaresan. To appear. Nominative case is independente of finiteness and agreement. Papers from BCGL 5: Case at the interfaces. Syntax and Semantics.

19

Miller, D. Gary. 2002. Nonfinite structures in theory and change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Modesto, Marcello. 2000. On the identification of null arguments. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Modesto, Marcello. 2008. Topic prominence and null subjects. In The limits of syntactic variation, Theresa Biberauer (ed.), 375-409. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Modesto, Marcello. 2010. What Brazilian Portuguese says about control: Remarks on Boeckx & Hornstein. Syntax 13:78-96. Modesto, Marcello. To appear. Infinitivos flexionados em portugus brasileiro e sua relevncia para a teoria do controle. In: Dermeval da Hora and Esmeralda Negro (eds.), Estudos da linguagem: casamento entre temas e perspectivas. Joo Pessoa: Ideia/Editora Universitria da UFPB. Moreira da Silva, Samuel. 1984. Etudes sur la symtrie et l'asymtrie SUJET/OBJET dans le Portugais du Brsil. Doctoral dissertation, Universit de Paris VIII. Nascimento, Milton do. 1984. Sur la posposition du sujet dans le Portugais du Brsil. Doctoral dissertation, Universit de Paris VIII. Negro, Esmeralda V. 1986. Anaphora in Brazilian Portuguese complement structures. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Pires, Acrisio. 2001. The syntax of gerunds and infinitives: subjects, case and control. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park.

20

Quicoli, A. Carlos. 1996. Inflection and parametric variation: Portuguese vs. Spanish. In Current issues in comparative grammar, ed. by R. Freidin, 46-80. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Raposo, Eduardo. 1987. Case Theory and Infl-to-Comp: The Inflected Infinitive in European Portuguese. Linguistic Inquiry 18:85-109. Rodrigues, C. 2004. Impoverished Morphology and A-movement out of Case Domains. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park. Sigursson, Halldr A. 1991. Icelandic Case-Marked PRO and the Licensing of Lexical Arguments. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 327-363. Sigursson, Halldr A. 2008. The case of PRO. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 403-450. Sitaridou, Ioanna. 2006. The (dis)association of Tense, phi-features EPP and nominative Case: case studies from Romance and Greek. In Studies on Agreement. J. Costa & M. C. Figueiredo Silva (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 243-260. Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 203-238 Wurmbrand, Susanne. 2001. Infinitives. Restructuring and Clause Structure (Studies in generative grammar 55). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

21