Ziarul click de azi horoscop

Master of None - Wikipedia en. Nazi human experimentation - Wikipedia en. TV5Monde - Wikipedia en. Related searches ziarul click azi online. Prev 20 21 22 23 24 Next. Related searches. Hosted IP Address: Hosted Country: DE. Location Latitude: Location Longitude: 7. Page Title of stirilemele. Meta Tags of stirilemele. Page Resources Breakdown. Homepage Links Analysis. Http-Version : 1. Host IP Address Country pdns Ira Beautiful Legs - irabeautifullegs.

Alexa Traffic Rank. The Framework 1. Briefly on control and binding in GB 1. Empty categories and binding We start our discussion with a brief presentation of Binding Theory henceforth, BT , since early control theories attempted to account for the data in terms of binding principles namely, treating PRO as an anaphor and reducing OC to binding principle A, see below.

The Binding Module is particularly concerned with co-reference relations between sentences, i. More precisely, it defines the syntactic domains where pronouns can, must or cannot have an antecedent. These must of necessity have an antecedent. Romanian however is a pro-drop language, so null pronominal subjects will also be taken into account, alongside overt pronominal ones — with the corresponding interpretational differences that the two types of subject trigger. These are full referential expressions which can pick up a specific referent in a given context and as such need antecedent DPs for well- formedness.

Chomsky Principle A: An anaphor is bound in its governing category. Principle B: A pronominal if free in its governing category. Principle C: An R-expression is free. Obviously, the shift from GB to minimalism has required a re-assessment of these conditions, not only due to the elimination of the distinction between D-structure and S-structure, but also because the bi-partite distinction between reflexive pronouns vs.

Since we focus on control rather than binding, and since we adopt a line of analysis which teases control apart from binding, as we shall see, this discussion exceeds the aims of our paper. Above we have exemplified the reference properties of anaphors and pronouns in English, a non-pro-drop language. However, other languages, Romanian included, license empty subjects in finite clauses: these are pros, to be contrasted with the subject PRO of infinitives. In GB, empty pronouns are analyzed as empty categories ECs , cf.

Chomsky An EC is a gap at S-structure and is assumed to appear whenever a sentence does not have an overt lexical item in a position assigned a theta-role, according to the Theta Criterion. These, alongside their overt counterparts are described by means of a combination of features, i. See i below, involving DP-embedding and adjuncts: i a. In a nutshell, the reformulation is the following: Condition B: A reflexive predicate is reflexive-marked i.

As such, only the latter will tail A-chains. This accounts for the contrast in ii below in different terms than the traditional account. Johni thinks himselfi to be smart. Whenever an argument is moved, the trace left behind and its antecedent form a chain the antecedent and the trace are co-indexed : 9 a. Maryi seems ti to be a smart girl. Whati did you buy ti at the market?

The referential properties and the distribution of empty categories are subject to the same principles of Binding Theory detailed above. Therefore, the overt anaphors and pronouns of English and the null i. As for wh-variables, which are both [- pronominal], [- anaphor] on a par with overt R- expressions , they are liable to Principle C.

This points out it should obey both Principle A and B. Johni wants [PROi to learn from his mistakes]. Avram , it discharges the theta role of the embedded predicate i. Importantly, however, it is not case-assigned in virtue of the very fact that it is null it has no phonetic content. Thus, if it moves from SpecVP to the specifier position of the clause it does so not for case reasons, but merely to satisfy the EPP.

PRO therefore differs from DPs in point of phonological content and case, which are actually connected — since case cannot be assigned to null categories but see below for refinements. However, the internal properties of an EC — and thus of PRO as well — represent a subset of the set of properties that characterize lexical NPs. Consequently, an R-index should be among the obligatory properties of PRO for reasons of semantic coherence and well-formedness. Besides the R-index, phi-features must also be specified, for cases when the EC itself functions as an antecedent of anaphors: 13 a.

Ziarul Gugulanilor, la Caransebeş

John was asked [how PROi to behave oneselfi in public] b. Before we embark on these minimalist considerations, let us have a look at the basic control configurations in GB obligatory and optional as well as at the basic distinctions between control and raising. The GB domain of control: obligatory vs. The former designates constructions that become illicit in the absence of an overt controller, which alongside the infinitive complement must be a co-argument of the matrix predicate.

Which argument of the main verb is designated as the controller is partly a lexical property of the former. Consider 14 below: 14 a. I promised him [PRO not to perjure myself] c. Promise and try in 14b, c are verbs of obligatory subject control because they force their subjects to control the empty subject of the infinitival complements that they select.

This can either be absent altogether cases of arbitrary control — 15 or may be in a clause higher than the one containing the infinitive long-distance control — 16 : 15 a. As already stated, in LD cases the controller of PRO and the infinitival dependent need not be clause-mates. It usually describes the situation when a local antecedent is available in the structure, but it is not the controller of PRO, which is instead co-indexed and controlled by a more remote DP available in the structure.

Actually, neither is there the need for c- command, i. Cornilescu b. Since OC requires a local overt controller, PRO cannot be interpreted as having arbitrary generic reference in such syntactic contexts i. Strict vs. Thus, the reconstructed constituents tend to be paired with overt NPs in different ways. Consider 19 below: 19 Bob persuaded me to pick up the sandwiches and Tom the liquor.

Johni tried to leave early, and Billj did too OC, only sloppy identity possible, i. Therefore, there is clear empirical evidence so as to support the classical control dichotomy into obligatory and non-obligatory control structures, the key differentiating element being the necessity or otherwise lack thereof of the controller and the infinitive complement to be arguments of the same matrix predicate. In GB, the partition still holds with the observation that while PRO in control constructions is a base-generated empty category which obtains via deletion under identity and whose antecedent is established at LF under the control module, the NP-trace is not base-generated, but the product of a transformational rule following the application of Move.

Thus, the two constructions seem quite similar at LF, in that they involve the binding of structurally identical empty categories PRO in control configurations, NP-trace in raising. They differ, however, in point of chain formation: Control is a relation between two chains each with its own theta role, see above , while raising involves a single chain, since the binder of the NP-trace is not independently theta-marked, unlike that of PRO.

Johni seemed [ei to kiss a ]. Johni hoped [ei to kiss a koala]. There seems [t to be a man in the room] b. The cat seems [t to be in the bag] c. John expects the boss to congratulate the team. John expects the team to be congratulated by the boss. John persuaded the boss [PRO to congratulate the team].

John persuaded the team [PRO to be congratulated by the boss. As can be observed from the examples above, raising constructions allow idioms and expletives in the subject positions 22a, b , unlike control structures 22c, d. Also, while under raising predicates passivization does not change the meaning of the sentence 23a can be paraphrased by 23b without any change in interpretation , it does so in control constructions. Obviously we are dealing with different types of verbs, in that persuade is a control verb a three-place predicate whereas expect is not a two-place predicate.

The ungrammaticality of 22c, d can also be explained by the assumption introduced earlier, namely that control constructions involve multiple chains and hence multiple theta- roles. Under this assumption, the expletive it and the NP the cat part of the idiomatic expression should bear their own theta roles, which cannot be the case. As to the examples under 23 , a similar reasoning applies. In 23a, b expect does not assign theta-roles to either the boss or the team. They get their relevant roles from inside the complement, from the verb to examine. In 23c, d however, persuade a control verb assigns theta-roles to both the boss and the team respectively and PRO heads another chain.

Another significant difference lies in the temporal properties of the two types of construction. June seems to be tired. Tom believes Rebecca to be intelligent. Conversely, raising complements can also be tensed. To sum up so far: the GB analysis PRO is a formative of grammar, the empty subject of control infinitivals, legitimated and identified by the Theta Criterion, the Projection Principle and The Empty Category Principle It bears its own theta role but no case, so it is in complementary distribution with lexical DPs There are two types of control configurations: Obligatory and Non-Obligatory.

In other words, control was seen as an extension of BT, such that obligatory control was treated on a par with anaphoric binding and optional control instances were likened to pronominal reference relations. More plainly, PRO in OC instances was analyzed as an anaphor which needed to be bound in its domain governing category the main clause , whereas NOC PRO was analyzed as a pronoun free to pick up a non- local antecedent or otherwise bear arbitrary reference.

Gallego 2. These reflect a long-standing debate in the literature more than a decade now between what have come to be known as the Movement Theory of Control henceforth, MTC, relying on Move as well as elimination of PRO, alongside its null case and the Movement Resistant Theory of Control relying on Agree.

Ziarul de azi !!!!

Given empirical evidence against reducing control to raising as well as the more-encompassing cross-linguistic explanatory power of the latter account especially in more recent studies , we will adopt, follow and elaborate more on the Agree account, which we leave for last — alongside interesting recent developments and some open issues. However, unlike the latter, which bear structural nominative assigned by finite inflection, PRO will bear null case, a special type of case that only non-finite inflection can assign and which only PRO is compatible with. The fact that PRO is incompatible with any other type of case explains why it is disallowed in regular case-marked position as well as its complementary distribution with lexical DPs: 25 a.

Romarioi tried [PROi to score the winning goal] b. See below for criticism of this position as well as proof that PRO can bear any type of case. A Move account Hornstein , There are three noteworthy studies which have embraced a Move account of control in minimalism, of which the most important is Hornstein and subsequent. Hornstein takes issue with some of the earlier accounts on the interpretation and distribution of PRO, which we will merely enumerate here. Thus, among others, he maintains that the distribution of PRO can be explained without recourse to the notion of government, tackles the problematic different interpretation of PRO in OC and NOC, draws attention to the theory-internal flavour of null case and discusses the argument structure of matrix predicates and the problem of which of their arguments gets chosen as antecedent, re- defining the Minimal Link Condition as a markedness condition.

In his view, the controller which at PF surfaces in the matrix clause has moved from the lower infinitival clause where it was originally projected, stopping to the next theta-position of the main clause and finally to the case position of the matrix. According to this assumption, the same DP actually bears two theta-roles the one of the complement verb and the one of the verb in the matrix. Thus, the chain in 26a contains two theta roles of the type DP Agent, t Agent : 26 a. He tried [ t to come]. He seemed [ t to be crying]. For the rest, they are the same since both are the result of a moved constituent.

Sportul de Vrancea Today Epaper in romanian (român)

The basic assumptions of his theoretical framework are the following: a. Greed is enlightened self-interest c. The radical innovation is the one in d , assuming as it does that control forms one chain similar to raising constructions , bearing at least two theta positions. John hopes to leave. Being an intermediary link in an A-chain, PRO needs a local antecedent, which explains the locality constraints on OC.

Moreover, because the movement occurs in overt syntax, it must be to a c-commanding position, that is why the copy corresponding to the antecedent c- commands the copy corresponding to PRO6. The sloppy reading restricted to OC is equally explained by reducing control to raising, the core stipulation of the MTC. Given that raising constructions only allow the sloppy reading and that control is nothing more than an instance of raising, it is expected that the latter constructions behave similarly: As far as the de se interpretation is concerned, it also finds an explanation under the present account, assuming that in OC the same expression ends up receiving two theta roles.

By means of movement we get a predication that ascribes a reflexive property to the main clause subject. Hornstein draws on Salmon here, pointing out the difference between relating the semantic value of the same expression to two theta positions vs. Hence, null case is irrelevant 1.


  1. birthday horoscope virgo december 4 2019.
  2. #mihaelaradulescu medias;
  3. january 26 horoscope birthday.
  4. Maria Constantin, ultima lui soție, a trimis o coroană cu flori;
  5. virgo description astrology.
  6. astrology midheaven aspects?

An Agree account and the importance of temporal specification Landau In what follows, we will elaborate on a different analysis of control in English and crosslinguistically , one that departs from the view that control is an extension of binding theory. At the same time, Landau is the first account that finds another — more reliable — factor able to tease apart OC from NOC, as well as to operate a distinction within the OC class itself into Exhaustive and Partial Control. The key ingredient is the tense specification of the complement, encoded in its C head.

As such, Landau is the first account which analyzes control as mediated by the temporal specification of the C head of control complements — a view that we also adopt in our account of the Romanian data, showing that OC readings are directly linked to the lack of tense specification of the complement. Before we delve into his analysis of the English data and his later amendments to the Agree model , , with more cross-linguistic coverage , let us briefly have a look at some of the reasons why OC and Condition A should be kept distinct.

Landau raises two important questions with respect to this view: a Does the distribution of PRO parallel that of lexical anaphors? As for b , differences in the distribution of controllers vs. In 28a both DPs subject and object can be antecedents for anaphoric reflexives, whereas in 28b only the object can control with a typical exercitive object control predicate7: 28 a. They can obviously control, but, being implicit, they cannot bind.

In 29 below, the implicit argument can control 29a , but not bind 29b. Mary1 thought that John said to her1 [PRO1 to wash herself1] b. While not dismissing this, Landau rightly wonders why only OC should be thus sensitive and not binding as well, if OC is binding. John claims [PRO to be intelligent], but no one else does. John believes [himself to be intelligent], but no one else does. The conclusion to be drawn is that OC and Condition A have different distributional properties and that a separation of the two is in order.

This leaves room for an alternative view which derives OC on the basis of the temporal specification of the subordinate, which in turn determines the referential possibilities of the subject position. In case the complement lacks tense specification, a [-R] referentially deficient subject PRO will be licensed see below.

The Agree account. Importantly, this checking relation is not achieved via Move, but by means of an Agree operation that holds between two lexical items and is triggered by uninterpretable features on each that they have to check. Unlike uninterpretable features, interpretable features [i] persist until the end of the cycle and can thus enter more than one checking i.

Agree relation. PRO gets null case in situ8, i. The anaphoric features of embedded inflection are indirectly checked by the antecedent DP and then passed on to PRO, which agrees with the infinitive inflection for purposes of case-checking. John wanted for Mary to win the game. John wondered how to win the game. The conclusion Landau draws is that the examples in 32 b, c belong to the OC category as well, being however different from the OC construction in 32a.

The intuition is that the former are more flexible than the latter while sharing nonetheless most of the characteristics of obligatory control. To account for this irregularity within the OC class, he proposes the distinction between Exhaustive Control and Partial Control, differentiated in terms of both the type of identity relation obtaining between PRO and its controller as we as the temporal properties of the infinitival complement.

Of the two, only Exhaustive Control still abides by the classical view that the relation between PRO and its controller must be one of strict identity. Partial Control introduces a new empirical problem in the discussion of Control Theory, pointing out that there are many instances particularly in English, the language Landau focuses on where the controller is merely referentially included in the set that PRO denotes, in a subset-superset relation.

The author breaks the domain of infinitival complements into seven classes according to the semantic characteristics of the matrix verb. Although languages differ as to what sort of 8 Later on, Landau , assumes that PRO can be case-marked, just like any regular DP see below , but this does not change the present account of control, which is kept throughout.

These predicates are: a aspectual begin, continue, start b modal need, have to, be able, etc. If — as stated above — EC requires strict identity between PRO and the controller and PC requires that PRO merely contain the controller, there must be some test to verify this assumption. This is the im possibility to control the PRO subject of a collective predicate.

In other words, whenever a collective predicate is allowed in the infinitive complement, PC obtains since PRO need merely contain the antecedent, not be identical with it ; on the other hand, when such a predicate is disallowed in the complement clause, the matrix verb that bans it must belong to the EC category. Consider now the examples below, all featuring a collective predicate in the complement: 33 a. The chairi managed [PROi to gather the committee].

The examples in 33b, c are ungrammatical, disallowing the collective predicate gather in the infinitival complement in 33b and together in 33c The reason is that such 10 According to Karttunen , implicative predicates assert or deny the truth of their complement i , ii ; conversely, factive predicates always presuppose it iii , iv. Comparing the pairs i - ii to iii - iv , one will notice that while both implicatives i and factives iii entail the truth of their complement in the affirmative i. As such, verbs like manage and begin are EC verbs. In 33a , where the EC matrix verb allows gather in the complement, gather is used transitively, requiring a collective direct object the committee.

In 34a, b the verbs prefer and know allow gather and together respectively, signaling they belong to the PC class. In light of this, it would seem that only a limited number of verbs allow EC exclusively, namely the first three classes out of the seven mentioned above i. The rest fall under the PC category, allowing PRO to have a singular antecedent while being the subject of a plural i.

Generalizing to a higher level, Landau observes that besides the distinction between EC and PC in terms of the semantic type of the matrix predicate, the two are also syntactically distinct function of the presence vs. The author acknowledges the existence of conflicting temporal modifiers between the matrix and the infinitive clause, suggesting the presence of distinct tense operators.

He then tests all the seven classes of verbs that take infinitival complements, concluding that modal and aspectual verbs take untensed subordinates, cf. However, both types pattern with PC verbs. Importantly, PC induces semantic, not syntactic plurality on PRO, given that these collective predicates do not require a syntactically plural subject; a semantically plural one is enough for the derivation to converge. Thus, PRO in PC structures inherits the syntactic number of its antecedent while semantically it can have plural interpretation, including the controller in its reference.

Otherwise put, if the antecedent is syntactically singular, PRO will also be syntactically singular while being able to be semantically plural including the controller in its extended reference ; If the antecedent is syntactically plural, PRO will also be syntactically plural, and the stipulation of its semantic plurality is no longer needed.

Desiderative or interrogative complements on the other hand allow a future-oriented interpretation i. Yesterday, John hoped to solve the problem tomorrow. Yesterday, John wondered how to solve the problem tomorrow. Today, John regretted having kissed Mary last week. Today, John claimed to have lost his car keys las week.

The case of implicative complements is somewhat problematic, in that they seem both to allow 38b and disallow 38a tense mismatches between the infinitive and the matrix: 38 a. John managed to have finished his homework on time. Actually, perfect infinitives are always ambiguous between past tense and present perfect interpretations and only the former would indicate a tense mismatch. Thus, it disallows arbitrary control 41a , it disallows long-distance control 41b and it triggers sloppy readings of PRO under ellipsis 41c : 41 a. If the controller is the subject, the functional head attracting it will be matrix Tense T.

For object control, the probe is the AgrO head or any other head assumed to assign Accusative to the object. This is possible by virtue of the anaphoric nature of infinitival Agr in OC, which renders the complement clause or elements inside it visible for Agree relations from outside. Moreover, it signals a switch in the semantic class of OC complements. Thus, in a sentence like Johni tried [PROi to get that job], the infinitive expresses a property attributed to the DP matrix subject i.


  • Stiri Timis – ocukufol.tk.
  • Femei, despre femei:.
  • ŞTIRILE ZILEI.
  • Carti de dragoste 2018;
  • Power Rangers Super Megaforce Episode 32.
  • 15 october horoscope in urdu 2019!
  • Ziarele / Ziare, ziare de azi, ziare online, ziare mondene romanesti!
  • These are intra-clausal relations. Here, moreover, it also occupies a non-argumental position. Johni said to Maryj that [it would be easy [PROj to prepare herselfj for the exam]] b. Thus, when the distant antecedent is not a logophoric center, a pronoun is more felicitous cf. Johni said about Maryj that it would be easy [for her to prepare herself for the exam] b. Below we include a brief description of some configurations, alongside examples. A situation which closely resembles Partial Control but should be teased apart from it in that the two differ as to their obligatory vs.

    Whereas Partial Control describes a situation where only one controller is overt, which, together with the infinitive complement are co-arguments of the matrix PC predicate and which, when singular, can license a semantically plural i. Needless to say that these DPs need not be clause-mates with the infinitive 44c and that in such cases a syntactically plural PRO is entailed, such that syntactically plural anaphors are licensed in these contexts see the italicised anaphor in 44c : 44 a.

    In 45b we also see Condition B effects, which further points out that in such contexts PRO cannot be co-indexed with the matrix clause antecedent: 45 a. Johni thought that it was wrong [PROarb to introduce himi to the dean. Another instance of NOC is implicit control, a situation when the controller is an unexpressed i. All these have already been tackled above. What these approaches have in common is the assumption that the case properties of PRO need to be fundamentally different from those of standard lexical NPs.

    The standard way of treating such facts is to assume a full set of standard phi-features on an element that happens to be phonologically null. The question whether case is or is not one of these features, therefore, is entirely a question of fact. And the facts speak clearly — PRO does bear case. That is, in some languages Romanian included , items such as predicates, reflexive or emphatic pronouns, floating quantifiers agree with the case for which the local DP is marked. When this DP is empty, these elements clearly indicate its case. There are two patterns for the case of PRO, cross-linguistically: either case independence 49 or case transmission Landau cites evidence in Landau , where examples are quoted from various languages.

    See relevant examples in 51 below. ACC to. ACC in the. NOM one. NOM after the other einzutreten]. DAT prima dor de Bucharesti]. The choice of pattern varies across languages, such that in some languages PRO never bears independent case, whereas other languages have optional case transmission e. Case percolation 52 from PRO upwards is unavailable with control structures, but available in raising see below.

    Thus, the debate between the MTC and the Agree account presented above is still standing, focused as it has lately been on Icelandic, a language with a rich case agreement where PRO has been shown to be case-active cf. However, as already announced, we will depart from the view that Romanian implicatives engender syntactic control and PRO. The most prominent characteristic of quirky i. A great many studies have been dedicated to this topic and most of them include Icelandic. For complex structures, this means that the lower inherent case overrides the structural case of the higher clause.

    Sigurdsson , quirky case preservation is expected in standard raising constructions, but not in control configurations. To put it briefly, if control is raising and quirky case has to be preserved in the course of the derivation, then quirky case is expected on the leftmost assumedly raised DP in control environments, against empirical evidence. DAT recovered. DAT seems to. DFLT from the. No longer is case reliable for the distinction of OC vs.

    He cites earlier studies focused on Balkan languages which have argued for this possibility in subjunctives Josephs , Comorovski , Iatridou , etc. These, in his view, are two: semantic tense, detectable by the possibility of tense mismatch and morphological agreement, that is specific inflection morphemes for phi- features. We have already shown above which predicates select tensed and untensed complements.

    The others select untensed complements [-T] and theferore no temporal mismatch is allowed.


    • list astrologers in hyderabad.
    • 26 january horoscope for january 2020!
    • Cadouri de paste pentru pensionari 2 aprilie 12222y: evenimente.
    • STIRILE ZILEI!
    • Horoscop urania 3 9 decembrie;
    • Landau formulates the following generalization on the finiteness rule for OC his : 54 The finiteness rule for OC In a fully specified complement clause i. Elsewhere, OC obtains. Some clarification is in order concerning Let us have a look at some examples illustrating these OC combinations, bearing in mind the classification of control predicates above.

      OC in [-T, -Agr] complements: English untensed infinitives 55 a. This is actually the case of subjunctives in Greek and Romanian the second instance of OC. Landau only illustrates the former, alongside inflected infinitive complements in Hungarian. We will come back to subjunctives in Romanian in the next section. DAT late arrive. It is therefore [-T] that ensures OC. Interestingly, once the embedding verb is an NC one, OC is annulled, as shown in the next example from Greek.

      The same happens with inflected infinitives in European Portuguese, for example, i. NOM 21 Besides modal, aspectual and implicative verbs, Landau also includes evaluative adjectives rude, silly, smart, im polite, modest, crazy, etc. A straightforward case is English, cf. Compare to this end a and b in the next two sets of examples from Welsh and Basque. Therefore, [-Agr] must be the key ingredient here.

      Safire-Project-Results Horoscope

      The b examples show how OC is annulled once inflection surfaces in these complements, with the same type of selecting predicate: 60 a. ABS make. This happens both in Turkish and in European Portuguese. Selected by the appropriate predicate, inflected infinitives in the latter display NC 62b. Inflection gone, OC is forced 62a 62 a. Hence, the ban on PRO. Conversely, either of the three OC-yielding combinations we have illustrated above will induce [- R], which only PRO can check.

      The nullness of PRO is derived differently in the various GB or minimalist frameworks outlined above. Case is again the key factor in distinguishing PRO, a null anaphor, from overt anaphors — if a binding approach of control is adopted Under the null case approach, null case is specifically designed to be assigned to a null category, preventing thus lexicalization. Under the Agree account, the controlled subject position needs to be referentially dependent, i. This opens up the possibility for either PRO, but also [-R] overt anaphors to occupy typical controlee positions see Landau He quotes examples of controlled pronouns and reflexives in Hungarian and Italian citing Szabolcsi , as well as in Korean, Chinese and Japanese Madigan b.

      An interesting observation — one that comes in handy for our discussion of null vs. Both Szabolcsi and Madigan b make similar claims: in Hungarian, the controlled pronominal subject occupies the preverbal focus position and has scopal properties; in Korean, it carries an exhaustive focus interpretation. Locating anaphoricity on infinitival Agr rather than PRO, Borer allowed for the possibility of overt pronouns and anaphors in such contexts to also be controlled cf.

      Landau Not many languages use this option. Of the few that do, some Tsez, Malagasy23 disallow forward control and only allow the backward version with a limited number of verbs aspectuals, mostly. Such structures have been shown to be bi-clausal constituency tests, adverb placement, etc. Other languages — among which Greek and Romanian — allow free variation between backward and forward control with all control verbs which select subjunctive complements in these languages. See, to this end, 63 below, with 63a as an instance of forward control and 63b backward control. Alboiu : 63 a. Ion tie [s danseze tango].

      Ion knows-3sg sbj dance-3sg tango b. The theory best equipped to deal with such problematic instances i. In this framework, as we have seen, control is actually reduced to an A-chain dependency. In standard control configurations i. This however predicts that forward control is out — which is not the case in Greek or Romanian, see above — and it also goes against evidence that even in those languages that ban forward control, there is evidence for structural case checking in both the embedded and the matrix clause e.

      Bejar and Massam , in Landau According to this scenario, the embedded overt subject gets one case and the covert matrix controller gets another. This view has the advantage of nicely accounting for the alternation between forward and backward control in languages such as Greek and Romanian — see the examples above. We will show this to be the case in Romanian as well: with aspectuals and modals in the matrix, a lower quirky case is preserved. To sum up: Is PRO always null? Moreover, those that do induce OC — fewer than in English or other languages — do so on account of their semantics aspectuals, modals.

      However, we argue that semantics alone cannot be responsible for the OC reading, since it seems to also be sensitive to the type of complement selected and its temporal specification as well as the syntactic properties of the selecting verbs. In what follows, we briefly lay out these issues, alongside some considerations concerning case-assignment, which we discuss first. In a nutshell, we take nominative case assignment to occur independently in all contexts which allow the merging of a disjoint subject in the subjunctive complement — numerous in Romanian, for that matter. Significantly, all these coincide with contentful embedded tense.

      For those environments which ban disjointedness, either long distance Agree or multiple case-marked A chains will provide a solution. All these observations will serve as background for the discussion we embark on in the subsequent chapters. On control, finiteness and case-assignment in Romanian subjunctives With Landau , , , the adoption of control in finite environments has ceased to be a problem see rule 54 above.

      In our analysis of the possibility of control in Romanian, we will therefore be referring to his rule of OC in finite complements, confirming that syntactically it is indeed the [-T] specification that guarantees the OC reading, alongside the properties of the selecting predicate itself. Where we differ from his assumptions is the way the control relation is parametrized. That is, given the possibility of backward control in OC instances in Romanian — obviously, alongside standard forward control — we argue that Romanian solves OC instances via raising, not via PRO[-R].

      As far as case-assignment is concerned, the null assumption that we start from is that structural nominative is assigned in all phasal domains in the same manner. In principle, nominative case valuation on a DP subject causes it to become frozen in place or inactive, i. This view has been slightly modified in more recent accounts, which claim that the checking of case [uK] on a DP does not render it inactive unless spell-out occurs.