---

6.6.2. Control Sentences

     Although control sentences have superficially similar structures with raising sentences in that they both take infinitival complements, they have different underlying structure.

            He_i seems e_i to understand the question.

            He_i tries to PRO_i understand the question.

     While the subject of the infinitival phrase in raising sentences is a trace of movement to the subject position of the raising verb, the subject of the infinitival phrase in control sentences is a PRO, which is “a referential pronoun which takes its reference from its controller.”[1] The controller can be the subject of the control verb as in the above example, or it can be its object as in the following example:

            He wants John_i to PRO_i understand the question.

     The controller can also be the object of preposition as in the following example:

            He appealed to John_i to PRO_i understand the question.

     Moreover, the controller may be vague and cannot be identified. This occurs when “there is no overt controller within the same sentence and the reference of the controllee is therefore arbitrary.”[2]

            PRO_i To quit the job now will be wrong.

     Here the reference “has an ‘arbitrary’ interpretation meaning approximately ‘someone or other’ … with a weak implication that the speaker and hearer are included.”[3]

     The controller may also be implied and not explicitly mentioned in the sentence as in the following example, where the reference is the inferred pronoun I:

My aim was PRO_i to make money.

     Trying to account for the different behavior of both raising and control sentences, Borsley[4] proposes that the basic difference between the two categories is that control verbs, like try, are capable of assigning thematic roles (or θ-roles for short) like agent and patient while raising verbs are not able to θ-mark their subject. This is evident in the fact that raising verbs, and not control verbs, can take the dummy expletive pronoun it in the subject position:

               It seems that John understands the question.

            * It tries that John understands the question.

     This is why the subject of the infinitival phrase in raising sentences is interpreted as the trace to the subject of the raising verb. Indeed, it is the verb in the infinitival phrase that assigns the θ-role AGENT to the subject. This interpretation, however, is not working with control sentences. A control verb θ-marks its subject and hence cannot receive a θ-role from the verb of the infinitival phrase because this will violate the θ-criterion which states that: “Each argument bears one and only one θ-role, and each θ-role is assigned to one and only one argument.”[5] The only feasible interpretation of the subject is then a PRO which refers back to its controller.

Test Examples: Control Sentences

a. He persuaded her to visit his father.

اقنعها أَنْ تَزُورَ أبوه.

Õaqna@ahŒ Õan taz´ra Õab´h.

b.      He wanted to visit his father.

ارادَ أَنْ يَزُورَ أبوه.

ÕarŒda Õan yaz´ra Õab´h.

c.      He wanted her to visit his father.

ارادها أَنْ تَزُورَ أبوه.

ÕarŒdahŒ Õan taz´ra Õab´h.

d.      He appealed to her to visit his father.

نَاشدَ إِلىها أَنْ تَزُورَ أبوه.

nŒÁada ÕilŒ hŒ Õan taz´ra Õab´h.

e.      She went to England to learn English.

ذَهبتْ إلى إنجلترا أَنْ تَتعلّمَ إنكليزية.

Äahabat ÕilŒ ÕingiltirŒ Õan tata@allam inkil¥ziyyah.

f. She is able to go to the party.

هي قادرةُ أَنْ تَذْهبَ إلى الحفلة.

hiya qŒdirah Õan taÄhaba ÕilŒ-l-úaflah.

g.      He promised her to visit his father.

وَعدها أَنْ تَزُورَ أبوه.

wa@adahŒ Õan taz´ra Õab´h.

h.      My aim was to make money.

هدفي كَانَ أَنْ يَجْمعَ مالاً.

hadaf¥ kŒna Õan yajma@a mŒlŒ.

i.  His aim was to make money.

هدفه كَانَ أَنْ يَجْمعَ مالاً.

hadafuhu kŒna Õan yajma@a mŒlŒ.

j.  Her aim was to make money.

هدفها كَانَ أَنْ يَجْمعَ مالاً.

hadafuhŒ kŒna Õan yajma@a mŒlŒ.

k.      The task of the manager is to organize work.

إنّ مهمةَ المديرِ أَنْ تُنظّمَ عمل.

Õinna muhimmata-l-mud¥ri Õan tuna½½ima @amal.

l.  He thought that his responsibility was to bring peace to the region.

اعتقدَ بأنّ مسؤوليته كَانتْ أَنْ تَجْلبَ سلام إِلى المنطقةِ.

Õi@taqada biÕanna masÕ´liyyatahu kŒnat Õan tajliba salŒm ÕilŒ-l-man‹iqah.

m.    We are not in a hurry to know the results.

نحن لا في عجلةِ أَنْ تَعْرفَ النَّتائِج.

naúnu lŒ f¥ @ajalah Õan ta@rifa-n-natŒÕij.

n.      They have nothing to do.

هم قَدْ لاشيئُ أَنْ يَعمَلُ.

hum qad lŒ ÁaiÕu Õan ya@mal.

o.      She found nothing to eat.

وَجدتْ لاشيئَ أَنْ يَأْكلَ.

wajadat lŒ ÁaiÕa Õan yaÕkul.

p.      It was silly of them to come late.

كان سخيف منهم أَنْ يَجيءَ متأخّر.

kŒna saÂ¥f minhum Õan yaj¥Õa mutaÕaÂÂir.

q.      To quit the job now will be wrong.

أَنْ تَتْركَ الشّغل الآن سَيَكُونُ خاطئَ.

Õan tatruka-Á-Áu©la-l-ÕŒna sayak´nu ÂŒ‹iÕ.

r. There was nothing to eat in the fridge.

هناك قَدْ لاشيئَ أَنْ يَأْكلَ في الثّلاجةِ.

hunŒka qad lŒ ÁaiÕa Õan yaÕkula f¥-¨-¨allŒjah.

Test Analysis:

     In examples a through f the system succeeds in detecting the correct subject of the infinitival. However, in examples g through p, it fails in identifying the correct subject, and so fails in making the verb agree with its appropriate subject. In examples q and r the subject could not be inferred from the sentence. Maybe the best solution is to translate them as verbal nouns (ma§dars) to preserve the ambiguity of the subject.

---