Control is not movement: evidence from overt PRO in Ewe
Deniz Satik
February 2021

Significantly updated. This paper presents novel data from the Anlo dialect of Ewe to show that the pronoun yè in the subject position of irrealis clauses has the properties of PRO, rather than the properties of logophoric pronouns. Given the overt nature of PRO, this paper sheds further light on control phenomena such as partial control. This paper presents four main arguments against Hornstein (1999)’s control as A-movement: partial control exists, contra Boeckx et al. (2010); deriving split control may violate minimality constraints, contra Fujii (2006); Ewe has control but not raising, which is unexpected if they are similar processes; and finally, that the phonetic form of PRO in Ewe is the same as the logophoric pronoun is coincidental under Hornstein (1999). Chierchia (1990)’s approach to control in which PRO is bound by an operator in the left periphery of the embedded clause provides a straightforward account of the facts seen in Ewe. Assuming Charnavel (2019)’s theory of logophoricity, control and logophoricity are treated alike, rather than control and raising.
Format: [ pdf ]
Reference: lingbuzz/004685
(please use that when you cite this article)
Published in: Resubmitted to Linguistic Inquiry
keywords: control, movement, pro, logophoric, partial, split, pronoun, semantics, syntax
previous versions: v3 [July 2020]
v2 [December 2019]
v1 [July 2019]
Downloaded:740 times


[ edit this article | back to article list ]