Non-canonical structural realization of control in Mandarin Chinese

Contending for the grammaticality of control sentences containing an overt controllee, we argue that Chinese control predicates may subcategorize for either nonfinite or finite controlled clauses. A nonfinite controlled clause instantiates canonical (minimal size) structural realization, while a finite controlled clause is a substantial CP instantiating non-canonical (larger-than-expected) structural realization. The latter forms an independent binding domain, thereby licensing an overt controllee. Finiteness of a Chinese controlled clause receives syntactic encoding to the extent that some element indicating the presence of a CP layer is mandatory. The free combination of a control predicate with a finite controlled clause is constrained by some overriding semantic/pragmatic considerations related to the categorical vs. thetic judgment type. A finite controlled clause expresses a categorical judgment, whereas a nonfinite controlled clause expresses the content of a thetic judgment. It is predicted based on the difference in judgment type that the subject of a finite controlled clause is not a minimal pronoun, in contrast to the PRO subject of a nonfinite controlled clause, which is a minimal pronoun. The binding relation between the null or lexical controllee subject of a finite controlled clause and its controller is semantic/pragmatic rather than syntactic in nature. 摘要: 本文主张汉语控制子句或为非限定小句，或为限定小句，后者允准显 性受控成分。非限定控制子句为控制动词补足语的典型(最小)句法实 现，而限定控制子句为较完整的 CP 结构，是控制动词补足语的非典 型(更大)句法实现；后者构成独立的约束域，从而允许显性受控成分 出现。汉语控制子句的限定性有句法编码，即子句中必须包含能够标 志 CP 层存在的成分。控制谓词与限定子句的合并受语义/语用因素制 约，涉及主题判断与非主题判断区分。限定控制子句表达主题判断，而非限定控制子句表达非主题判断。基于这一差异，本文提出限定控 制子句的主语并非最小代词，而非限定控制子句的 PRO 主语则是最 小代词；此外，限定控制子句的显性或相应的隐性主语与控制语之间 的约束关系本质上由语义/语用因素驱动，而非句法决定。