Cover not available
Part of
Romance Linguistics 2013: Selected papers from the 43rd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), New York, 17-19 April, 2013
Edited by Christina Tortora, Marcel den Dikken, Ignacio L. Montoya and Teresa O'Neill
[Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 9] 2016
► pp. 341–360

Some notes on falloir, devoir, and the theory of control

| The Pennsylvania State University
This article sheds new light on the structure and meaning of sentences containing the French modal verbs devoir and falloir, as well as on the syntax and semantics of Control generally. Well-known and previously unnoticed empirical facts are examined that support the author’s novel contention that falloir and devoir are syntactically and semantically ambiguous. These data are also argued to offer indirect support for the analysis of Control clauses recently developed in Reed (2014: Ch. 6 and 7), according to which there is a theoretical primitive (pro) and it is associated with a “minimal” feature bundle consisting of just [−expletive] and [+N] syntactic features, with a separate, post-syntactic Theory of Control determining its understood phi-features.
Published online: 3 February 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.9.18ree
References (40)
References
Authier, J.-Marc and Lisa Reed. 2009. “French Tough-Movement Revisited.” Probus 21 (1): 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1979. “Control in Montague Grammar.” Linguistic Inquiry 10 (4): 515–531.Google Scholar
Barbiers, Sjef. 1995. The Syntax of Interpretation. The Netherlands: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2007. “The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation: An Economy Approach.” Minimalist Syntax: The Essential Readings ed. by Željko Bošković and Howard Lasnik, 86–111. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Bowers, John. 2002. “Transitivity.” Linguistic Inquiry 33 (2): 183–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik. 1995. “The Theory of Principles and Parameters.” The Minimalist Program, Noam Chomsky, 13–127. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Culbertson, Jennifer and Géraldine Legendre. 2014. “Prefixal Agreement and Impersonal il in Spoken French: Experimental Evidence.” Journal of French Language Studies 24 (1): 83–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dubois, Jean. 1969. Grammaire structurale du français: La phrase et les transformations. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Eide, Kristin. 2006. Norwegian Modals. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Samuel. 1984. “Quantifier-pro and the LF Representation of PRO.” Linguistic Inquiry 15 (3): 499–505.Google Scholar
Grinder, John. 1970. “Super Equi-NP Deletion.” Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 297–317. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago.
Harley, Heidi. 2011. “A Minimalist Approach to Argument Structure.” The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism ed. by Cedric Boeckx, 427–448. Oxford University Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. “Movement and Control.” Linguistic Inquiry 30 (1): 69–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huot, Hélène. 1974. Le verbe devoir: étude synchronique et diachronique. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray, and Peter Culicover. 2003. “The Semantic Basis of Control in English.” Language 79 (3): 517–556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kajita, Masaru. 1967. A Generative-Transformational Study of Semi-Auxiliaries in Present-Day American English. Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.
Kayne, Richard. 1969. The Transformational Cycle in French. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
. 1975. French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. “The Notional Category of Modality.” Words, Worlds, and Contexts. New Approaches in Word Semantics ed. by Hans-Jürgen Eikmeyer and Hannes Rieser, 38–74. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 1991. “Modality.” Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research ed. by Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich, 639–650. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of Control: Structure and Meaning in Infinitival Constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “The Scale of Finiteness and the Calculus of Control.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22 (4): 811–877. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Control in Generative Grammar: A Research Companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1992. “Two Notes on Control and Binding.” Control and Grammar ed. by Richard Larson, Sabine Iatridou, Utpal Lahiri, and James Higginbotham, 235–251. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, Roger. 2001. “Null Case and the Distribution of PRO.” Linguistic Inquiry 32 (1): 141–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1970. “The Two Verbs Begin.” Readings in English Transformational Grammar ed. by Roderick Jacobs and Peter Rosenbaum, 107–277. Waltham, Mass: Ginn and Company.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1970. “On Coreferential Complement Subject Deletion.” Linguistic Inquiry 1 (4): 439–500.Google Scholar
Reed, Lisa. 2014. Strengthening the PRO Hypothesis. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rooryck, Johan. 2000. Configurations of Sentential Complementation. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “Control via Selection.” New Horizons in the Analysis of Raising and Control ed. by William Davies and Stanley Dubinsky, 281–292. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, John. 1969. “Auxiliaries as Main Verbs.” Studies in Philosophical Linguistics Series I ed. by William Todd, 77–102. Evanston: Great Expectations Press.Google Scholar
Ruwet, Nicolas. 1972. Théorie syntaxique et syntaxe du français. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Safir, Kenneth. 1985. Syntactic Chains. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan, and Carl Pollard. 1991. “An Integrated Theory of Complement Control.” Language 67 (1): 63–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1985. “PRO and Subject of NP.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3 (3): 297–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. “Adjunct Control.” Control and Grammar ed. by Richard Larson, Sabine Iatridou, Utpal Lahiri, and James Higginbotham, 297–322. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Michael and Georg Kaiser. 2014. “On Expletive Subject Pronoun Drop in Colloquial French.” Journal of French Language Studies 24 (1): 107–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1983. “On the Notion ‘Adjunct Subject’ and a Class of Raising Predicates.” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 5: 195–232.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Reed, Lisa A.
2019. Further Implications of French Devoir and Falloir for Theories of Control and Modality. In Contributions of Romance Languages to Current Linguistic Theory [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 95], ► pp. 65 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.