The overgeneration problem and the case of semipredicatives in Russian 15
the relevant functional category probe has been introduced, even if the relation is not
especially local. This may involve postponing determination of feature values until the
mapping to PF. I will eventually opt for a feature-sharing version of the latter approach.
In exploring the behaviour of Russian semipredicatives, I first present some
additional relevant data and discuss their implications for any adequate solution. The
conclusion of Section 2 is that the grammar must allow for two distinct mechanisms
for establishing control, one giving rise to the SD and the other to agreement. In
S ection 3, some alternative approaches to control and the case of predicate adjectives
are reviewed. These include (i) the “vertical binding” (VB) system of Babby (1998,
2009 ), (ii) the “movement theory of control” (MTC) elaborated in Hornstein (2001)
and applied to Russian in Grebenyova (2005), (iii) the minimalist multiple probe-goal
system of Landau (2008), and (iv) the Government and Binding (GB) caseless PRO
system of Franks (1995). These approaches are compared in more depth in Section 4,
with the aim of gleaning from them their virtues and identifying likely problematic
aspects. Section 5 briefly considers how semipredicatives part from ordinary predicate
adjectives; the latter differ from semipredicatives in that their default case is instru-
mental rather than dative and that the default case is virtually always grammatically
possible. It will be argued that semipredicatives can be direct targets of case assign-
ment, whereas ordinary adjectives can only agree. Finally, Section 6 is an effort to
unify the critical insights of alternative conceptions of control and the case of predi-
cate adjectives in a way that addresses the facts and provides a convincing solution to
the overgeneration and look-ahead problems. An MTC approach will be argued for,
although recast in multi-attachment terms to allow for feature-sharing and late valu-
ation of case features.
- Some empirical and conceptual issues
In this section, additional data are surveyed and the issues for any eventual analysis of
the SD are discussed.
2.1 “Divided” control
As pointed out with respect to (1) above, agreement is only possible in OC contexts.
Additional examples are similar, in that they all involve infinitival complements to
subject control verbs, such as xotet’ ‘to want’, starat’sja ‘to try’, rešit’ ‘to decide’, ljubit’
‘to love’ and so on, as in (5), from Comrie (1974). Following GB practice, I represent
silent subjects as PRO:
(5) Nadja ljubit [PRO gotovit’ sama].
Nadya.nom likes prepare.inf self.nom
‘Nadya likes cooking on her own.’