Pro and Control in Tiv

Citation: Isaac Kuna (2017). Pro and Control in Tiv. Yobe Journal of Language, Literature and Culture (YOJOLLAC), Vol. 5. Department of African Languages and Linguistics, Yobe State University, Damaturu, Nigeria. ISSN 2449-0660

PRO AND CONTROL IN TIV

ISAAC KUNA

Abstract

Control theory is of great interest to both syntacticians and semanticists such as Chomsky (1965; 1981), Rosenbaum (1967), Culicover and Willinks (1986), Hornstein (1997, 1999), Culicover and Jackendoff (2005), Boeckx and Hornstein (2003) and Landau (2003), to mention but a few. It is the interface between semantics and syntax. PRO is a non-overt NP of infinitivals which is not realized morphologically or phonologically. Infinitival clauses without overt subjects have a non-overt subject represented as PRO.  As such, it is part of the set of empty categories. The null pronoun PRO is postulated in the subject position of non-finite clauses. One property of PRO is that, when it occurs in a non-finite complement clause, it can be bound by the matrix clause subject or the main clause object. I try to illustrate that control behaves differently in Tiv that is structurally different from English.In object-control constructions, both the matrix and embedded clauses are assigned Ɵ-roles. The imposition of these pronominals occasions the tense-ness of both the matrix and the embedded clauses. This article underscores the need to investigate the properties of syntactic and semantic representations and the rules that form them. The properties of empty elements cannot be determined inductively from observed overt phenomena but rather, reflect intuitive knowledge of the Tiv language user.

Keywords: PRO; Tiv; obligatory control; non-obligatory control; government and binding

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In Binding Principles, it has been established that: an anaphor must be bound locally; apronominal must be free locally and an R-expression must be free everywhere. Anaphors are bound by antecedents within their clauses. ‘Pronouns can either be bound by antecedents outside their clause or be free. R-expressions get their meaning from the discourse or context and cannot be bound’ (Carnie 2007:412).Their occurrence, distribution and interpretation are regulated by variousprinciples and modules of the grammar such as the projection principle, the theta criterion, the extended projection principle, X-bar theory, case theory and the binding theory. The distribution and interpretation of PRO is therefore, regulated by the module of the grammar known as control theory. PRO is a non-overt NP which is active and syntactically represented with no overt manifestation. It has the characteristics of anaphor and pronominal. PRO may be referentially dependent on, or controlled by, another NP in the sentence. It occurs in ungoverned positions and we derive this property from its feature composition (Haegeman, 1994: 253).

Radford (2004: 108)

The term control is used to refer to a relation of referential dependencybetween an unexpressed subject (the controlled element) and an expressedor unexpressed constituent (the controller). The referential propertiesof the controlled element . . . are determined by those of the controller(Bresnan, 1982: 372). PRO has“the same grammatical and referential properties as a pronoun, and hence appears to be a null pronoun. In order to differentiate it from the null (‘little pro’) subject found in finite clauses in null-subject languages like Italian, it is conventionally designated as PRO and referred to as big PRO” (Radford, 2004:108).

“Tiv assumes three varying meanings… First, it refers to the ancestral father of the Tiv race of central Nigeria. Second, Tiv refers to the ethnic group which is the descendant of Tiv. Lastly, it refers to the language spoken by this race” (Udu, 2009: 1). It is classified under the Benue-Congo branch of the Niger family of languages. It is of Bantu origin and belongs to the semi-Bantu group of languages. Tiv is an inflectional (fusional) language as units of meaning are fused into a single morphological shape. The language exhibits seven morphological processes such as: prefixation, suffixation, infixation, stem modification, reduplication, suprasegmental modification and suppletion. It is predominantly a dependent-marking language.The language has SVO word order. Tiv population was put at 4,253,641 (NPC, 2006 Census) and is ranked the 6^th largest ethnic group in Nigeria. With this huge figure, the researcher considers the Tiv language worthy of describing and documenting.

Control can be understood in Tiv as a binding relation involving the infinitival verb as the dependent element. PRO must occur in ungoverned positions and so, cannot follow a transitive verb which would govern it (Janke, 2003).Controlbehaves differently in Tiv that is structurally different fromEnglish. In object-control constructions, both the matrix and embedded clauses bear pronominal (PRN) subjects. Both clauses are tensed and are Ɵ-marked. Tiv language is a PRO-drop language withsome exceptional clausal constructions.

1.1 PRO AND CONTROL THEORY

Within Government and Binding theory, the existence and distribution of PRO followedfrom the PRO Theorem, which state that PRO is ungoverned. PRO is taken to be in complementary distribution with overt subjects because it is the only item that is able to carry null case which is checked for by non-finite Tense Markers (T). “The phenomenon of control pertains to the distribution and interpretation of the null-subject in non-finite clauses following control verbs, and in clause-initial gerunds and infinitives”(Janke, 2003: 213).

In his book, Syntax: A Generative Introduction (2007), the syntactician, Andrew Carnie states that PRO can be ‘controlled’, ‘co-referent’ or ‘bound’. That is, it gets its meaning from another DP(NP). The DP that serves as PRO’s antecedent is called its ‘controller’.

(1)

PRO sits in the subject position of non-finite clause to see me, which appears to be subjectless in most languages. Semantically, the subject of the main clause, The man, clearly acts as PRO (the missing subject). The man is the one both wanting and seeing. The determination of the referential property of PRO falls within control theory. Its position in the syntactic structure is anchored on Projection Principles, Government-Binding Theory and Case Theory. The theory of control permits the controller of PRO (Chomsky, 1981; Crystal, 2008).

If α is an empty category, then α is PRO if and only if α is ungoverned (Chomsky, 1981: 60)

In (2), the pronoun is not visible but in (3) the pronoun (him) is visible. Cook and Newson (2007:87) claim that ‘there is a syntactic and semantic subject of the non-finite clause, but that is not phonetically realized’. PRO is a phonologically empty syntactic element, also known as Null Subject. Alternatively, in (3), him is an R-expression which serves as the subject of the infinite clause. PRO is restricted to ungoverned positions and must appear in positions where an NP is required but no case is assigned (Chomsky, 1981; Haegeman, 1994).

1.2 PROPERTIES OF CONTROL

The selectional rules for verb phrases are central to control theory. The selection of the verb has a crucial part to play. In other words, within a word category such as the verb there is restriction on the choice of a verb that will head the VP. Whether a verb takes a complement or not, depends on the characterization or properties of the verb. “Base rules generates D-structures (deep structures) through insertion of lexical items into structures generated by phrase structure rules, in accordance with their feature structure” (Chomsky, 1981: 5).The number of arguments a particular predicate requires is referred to as argument structure or valency. This presupposes that subcategorization is related to valency and transitivity.There are group of verbs that can take a subject, direct and indirect objects at the same time.We can say that transitive verbs form a subcategory of the category of verbs that take direct objects; contrary to intransitive verbs that do not take direct objects.

The verb promise in (4) is a subject-control verb which has its subject as the controller while the verb ask is an object-control verb.

In (4) He (subject) controls the non-finite clause while in (5) him (object) controls the non-finite clause.“Part of the motivation for PRO comes from considerations relating to argument structure” (Radford, 2004: 108).

ƊPRO To err is humanɗ ƊPRO to forgive is divineɗ

Someone errs, someone forgives. PRO is not controlled by anything – it is arbitrary.

Isaac attempted ƊPRO to err.ɗ

Here, PRO refers to Isaac. It does not refer to someone else. This is non-arbitrary PRO. It is subdivided into: obligatory control PRO and optional-control PRO. PRO is obligatorily controlled when it refers to the antecedent or subject of the main clause, as in (7) but optionally controlled when it is ‘ambiguous’ (can refer to two different things).

Isaac believes that it is divine ƊPRO to be forgivenɗ

PRO here can either refer to Isaac or someone else.

‘The null pronoun subject of non-finite clause is often called PRO … and is only ever found in subject position in non-finite clauses and is banned from object position and finite clause subject position’(Cook and Newson, 2007:88). PRO is not realized phonologically but psychologically as it is not morphologically represented.

‘Control theory determines the potential for reference of the abstract pronominal element PRO” (Chomsky, 1981a:6)

Isaac decided ƊPRO to leaveɗ

As cited in Carnie (2007:413), Williams (1980) suggested that in obligatory control constructions, ‘PRO must be C-commanded by its controller, just as an anaphor must be c-commanded by its antecedent’. He however, argues that, it is not always the case. There are situations where PRO is free whereas, anaphor can never be free. PRO violates Principle A.

ƊIsaacɗ decided ƊPRO to leaveɗ

In some languages, these subjectless sentences are interpreted as though they do have pronominal subject specify an instance of a phonologically null element. This phenomenon is known as PRO-drop. Thus, languages such as Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, Italian, Japanese, Spanish, etc which allows such null-subject sentence are called Pro-drop languages while languages like English, French, German, Dutch, etc, which do not allow, are called Non-pro-drop languages. Notwithstanding, it is controversial to analyze pro-drop (Cook and Newson, 2007:91).

(11) ƊPRO U zan manɗ ƊPRO u hiden ka can gaɗ

To going and to return is difficult not

To go and return is not difficult.

(12) ƊPRO U civir Aondo doo kpishiɗ

To honour  God  good very.

To honour God is very good.

They are arbitrary thus, not controlled by any DP (subject). They derive their meanings outside the sentences. The Tiv language is a PRO-drop language.The theory of control determines the choice of antecedent for PRO. Carnie (2007) suggests two different kinds of PRO – Arbitrary PRO (PRO_arb) and Non-arbitrary PRO(PRO_-arb). Arbitrary PRO is like an R-expression which is not controlled by any DP (NP) or subject. It gets its meaning pragmatically.

1.3 SUBJECT CONTROL

Subject-control construction occurs where the subject of the matrix clause is co-referential with PRO. It controls the infinitival clause where the predicate assigns two theta roles to the sentence. PRO obligatorily possesses “a theta-marked antecedent and a requirement that this antecedent be local, c-commanding and unique” (Janke, 2003: 235).For instance, in Tiv:

(13)A_i soo ƊPRO_i u yemen.ɗ

S/he wants to going.

(S/he wants to go)

(14) Ve_i ôr ƊPRO_iu va van.ɗ

They said to come coming

They said of coming

(15) Se_i lumun ƊPRO_iu zan shin Nakaɗ

We agree to going to Naka

We agreed to go to Naka

(16) M_i nôngo ƊPRO_iu yan kwaghyan nyianɗ

I tried to eating food today

I tried to eat today

Tiv infinitive is made up of u (to) and the progressive e.g. yemen(leaving or going), hiden(returning), yamen(buying), etc. The preposition u can mean ‘to’, ‘of’ or ‘you’, depending on the context or environment.

In sentences (13-16), all the subjects of the main clauses: A, Ve, Se and Mcontrol the infinitival clauses:u yemen; u va van;u zan shin Nakaand u yan kwaghyan nyianThat is, PRO is controlled by the subject of the finite clause. Hence, PRO is non-arbitrary as it refers to the overt subjects of the matrix clauses. According to Chomsky (1981: 61), PRO is termed “proximate” where it is co-indexed with an antecedent and “obviative” where it is not. Proximate PRO is controlled but obviative PRO is arbitrary in reference. Look at the PROs in:

(17) ƊPRO Nôngoɗ ƊPRO vaɗ

Try       come

Try and come

(18) ƊPRO Yeveseɗ ƊPRO yemɗ

Run     go

Run   and   go

(19) ƊPRO Vaɗ ƊPRO nyorɗ ƊPRO karɗ ƊPRO dueɗ ƊPRO yemɗ

  

The subject is missing in the above sentences. But we know the speaker and the referents (R-expression). In ordinary speech, Tiv language does not allow second person singular pronoun, we (you) to appear at the subject position. Intransitive verbs such as: nôngo, va, yevese, yem, kar, dueetc.can be used with infinitive without u (to). It expresses futurity with second person singular (you). The structure changes with first person plural, second person plural and third person plural.

(20) ƊPRNVe nôngoɗƊPRN ve va.ɗ

They try they come

(They triedto come)

(21) ƊPRN SenôngoƊPRN se vaɗ

We try we come

We will try and come.

(22) ƊPRNUnôngoƊPRN u vaɗ

SING You PERF try you come

SING You tried and came.

Here, the pronouns: they, we, you appear twice, sitting in subject positions and phonologically realized.  In the perfective tense (22), the second person singular u also appears twice. In this case, the above sentences suggest the phenomenon of ‘pro-drop’. Note that pro written in lower case, is also called little pro or baby pro. This appears in Case position. But PRO in higher case, is Caseless.

1.4 OBJECT CONTROL

Object-control construction happens where the matrix clause object is co-referential with PRO. This occurs where the main clause predicate assigns three theta roles to the sentence.

(23) M kighir veƊPRN ve vaɗ

I persuaded them they come

I persuade them to come

(24) A zamber ƊPRN ana ƊCP erɗ ƊPRN a vaɗ

S/he begged him/her that s/he come

S/he begged him/her that s/he should come

(25) A kaa ƊCP er ɗ ƊPRN ve vaɗ

S/he said that they come

S/he said that they should come.

(26) Terwase soo ƊCP erTerfaɗ ƊPRN a yemɗ

Terwase wants that Terfa he go

Terwase wants Terfa to go

If PRO is ungoverned, then, it must be excluded from the complement positions governed by the head of some constructions and from the position of subject of a tensed clause (Chomsky, 1981: 64).

1.5 EXPLETIVE AND THE EXTENDED PROJECTION PRINCIPLE

In sentences, we refer to pronouns it and there as expletive or pleonastic pronouns that take intransitive verbs like: come, rain, sleep, and other raising verbs like: seem, appear, etc. These elements are meaningless as no θ-role is assigned to them thereby violating the theta criterion. “By projection principle, verbs with infinitival complements appear with clausal complements as indicated by their lexical features. Clausal complements are of the category S…” (Chomsky, 1981: 66). Consider the following sentences:

(27) There came a monster from the sea.

(28) It rained cats and dogs.

The pronouns there and it lack θ-roles. Since they are not arguments of their predicates, ‘But why are they sitting in subject position?’ You may ask. In English, singular is obligatory. This brings a about the grammatical principle called the Extended Projection Principle (EPP)’. The two principles – the projection principle- constitute what is called the extended projection principle (EPP). (Chomsky 1986a:116). This means that all clauses must have subjects. However, when expletives appear elsewhere, they bear theta roles.

(29) A monster came there.

(30) I love it.

In (29) there is assigned the θ-role of location while in (30) it bears the θ-role of theme. The following are the examples in the Tiv language:

(31) I tseem yol                                                                                                                                                     

It hots-my  body.

(My body is hot.)

(32) I doom   yol.

It good -my body

(I am happy / healthy)

(33) I ndôhôô mo.

It colds me

(I am catchingcold)

The pleonastic pronoun, I(it) does not bear any theta role. In Tiv, this element is optional. It is more acceptable to say:

(34) Tseem yol.

Hot-my body

(My body is hot)

(35) Ndôhôô mo.

Cold me

(I am catching cold.)

But it is obligatory in sentences like:

(36) I num kpuugh.

It dispersed suddenly

(The people dispersed suddenly)

An argument bearing no Ɵ-role cannot be an antecedent. PRO is subject to locality constraint and must be c-commanded by its antecedent.

1.6 CONCLUSION

The subjectless or non-finite clause has an abstract pronoun called PRO which is not phonologically realized. PRO may be co-referent, controlled or bound by its antecedent which is the subject of the finite clause. The properties of a verb define its argument. Since the distribution of PRO does not lend itself to the binding theory, control theory has been proposed to account for PRO (Carnie, 2001: 269). Control theory determines the potential for reference of the abstract pronominal element, called PRO (Chomsky, 1986a).

Chomsky (1981) claims that, the reason PRO is referred to as a null and silent NP is because it appears in caseless position. In other words, it occupies the position of the specifier of non-finite TP. Therefore, without PRO, there would be violations of the theta criterion as it accounts for most grammatical sentences that have to do with embeddedinfinitival clauses.When expletives appear elsewhere, apart from subject position, they bear θ-roles.

In Tiv, following Haegeman (1994: 273, 285), though PRO serves as the subject of an infinitival clause, the infinitival is not strong enough to govern PRO. It is controlled by the matrix clause. PRO is licensed if it is ungoverned. It follows that PRO is in complementary distribution with overt NPs. Where PRO is allowed, overt NPs are excluded and where overt NPs are allowed, PRO is excluded. This means that they are in mutually exclusive appearance.  The licensing of PRO helps us predict that it does not alternate with overt NPs in Tiv language. In subject-control constructions, Tiv language makes use of the big PRO but when it comes to object-control constructions, two pronominals appear in the sentence-medial: the accusative pronoun as object of the main clause and the nominative pronoun introduces the tensed embedded clause. Since Tiv allows PRO in its subject-control constructions, it is a PRO-drop language.

References

Boeckx, C. & Hornstein, N. (2003). Reply to “Control is Not Movement.”Linguistic Inquiry34: 269–80., MIT Press.

Bresnan, J. (1982). Control and Complementation. In Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 13, No.3, pp. 343-434, MIT Press.

Carnie, A. (2001). Syntax: A Generative Introduction. Oxford, England:             Blackwell.  

Carnie, A. (2007). Syntax: A Generative Introduction. (New Ed.) Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Cook, V. J. and Newson, M. (2007). Chomsky's Universal Grammar: An Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell.                                                                                                    

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris: Dordrecht.

Chomsky, N. (1994). Bare Phrase Structure. In Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program, ed by Gert Webelhuth, 383 – 439.

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.

Crystal, D. (2008). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Culicover, P.W. & Jackendoff, R. (2001). Control is not Movement. Linguistic Inquiry 32. 493– 512. MIT Press.

Culicover, P. W. & Willinks, W. (1986). Control, PRO, and the projection principle. Language 62. 120–53.

Haegeman, L. (1994). Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Hornstein, N. (1997). Movement and Control. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69-86. MIT Press.

Hornstein, N. (1999). Movement and Control. Linguistic Inquiry 30. 69–96.MIT Press.

Jackendoff (1997).The Architecture of the Language Faculty. MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass.

Janke, V. (2003). A PRO-less Theory of Control. A paper presented at the 6th Durham              

Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics. Landau, I. (2001).Elements of Control: Structure and Meaning in Infinitival Constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Landau, I. (2003). Movement out of control. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 471–98.MIT Press.

Radford, A. (2004). Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rosenbaum, P. (1967). The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Udu, T. T. (2009). Tiv Language: A Reference Book. Kaduna: Labari Publishers.

Williams, E. (1980). Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 203-38.MIT Press.

Williams, E. (1994).Thematic Structure in Syntax. MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass.