Explanation
A control construction typically contains an infinitive with an unexpressed subject whose reference is determined by an argument of the matrix clause. In “Mira promises to come,” Mira is semantically selected by promise and also understood as the actor of come. Depending on the predicate, the controller may be the subject, the object, or a participant supplied more generally by context. The analysis thus connects lexical meaning, unpronounced structure, and reference. The conceptual movement asks who acts in the infinitive, what licenses that identification, and whether control is obligatory, variable, or arbitrary. Comparison with raising is essential because similar surface strings need not have the same structure.
Movement of thought
1. The unexpressed subject of the infinitive is recognised as a distinct interpretive position. 2. Possible antecedents in the matrix clause are tested against the higher predicate's meaning. 3. Subject, object, and arbitrary control are distinguished through contrasting examples. 4. Expletives, passivisation, and semantic paraphrases test for an independent higher role. 5. The analysis specifies how syntax, lexical information, and context jointly determine reference.
Scientific use case
Syntax, semantics, and acquisition research study control through predicate classes, interpretation judgements, and corpus patterns. Cross-linguistic work asks whether control is realised through null subjects, case, or other structures.
Example
In “The doctor asks the visitor to wait,” the visitor is understood both as addressee of ask and as the unexpressed subject of wait. The matrix object therefore controls the infinitival position.
Counterexample
The presence of a higher noun phrase before an infinitive does not establish control. If the matrix predicate assigns no semantic role of its own and permits an expletive, raising provides the more appropriate analysis.
Distinction
Distinguish control from raising, ellipsis, and simple coreference. In control, the antecedent receives a role from the higher predicate while an understood subject position in the infinitive bears another role.
Effect on thought and perception
Control permits one participant to be understood across two predications without being pronounced twice. It condenses sentence structure and makes lexical expectations available for reference resolution.
Resonance
A pronounced participant acts into an unspoken clausal space. Its reference continues across the boundary and gives the empty subject position direction and agency.
Cite this entry
Reich, Michael (Hrsg./ed.): „Control construction“. Atlas der Sprache, AT-133-023. ATLAS 260, data model 1.6.0. https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-133-023The address remains stable; editorial content may evolve. Editorial reading state: 2026-10-15. Include your access date for precise references.
Historical background
Jespersen treats infinitival combinations as nexuses and examines how their predication enters the main sentence. His examples include seem and comparable German and French constructions. These provide historical analyses of infinitival dependency, not a direct source for later control theory. The seem examples are especially relevant to modern raising, whereas the Atlas profile concerns the understood subject of an infinitive. The later-printing OCR was inspected, with this theoretical distinction preserved.
How conceptual history changes the analysis
Identify the controller and the infinitive’s understood subject. Also test whether the higher predicate assigns its overt argument an independent semantic role; this helps distinguish control from raising.
References for the historical section
- Otto Jespersen, The Philosophy of Grammar, work first published 1924; inspected later printing with November 1934 afterword, exact printing year unresolved · Chapter IX, infinitival nexus and nexus-object, printed pp. 119–123
Selected historical witness, not a complete genealogy or a first English attestation. Atlas comparisons and applications are original editorial interpretations. OCR of a later printing containing a 1934 afterword. The catalogue’s 1924 date identifies the work’s first publication, not the inspected copy. Historical judgments about languages and social groups require critical distance.