Advances in Role and Reference Grammar

SEMANTIC AND SYNTACTIC FACTORS IN CONTROL 171

2. The RRG analysis of control

We now turn to the RRG theory of control relations, which predicts control
relations based on the semantics of the matrix verb. In this section, I will
first discuss a few of the RRG concepts which are important in my analysis
of control. I will then outline the verb semantic analysis of control pre­
sented in Foley & Van Valin (1984).

2.1 Concepts of RRG theory

The notion of pivot is important to the RRG theory of control, for the con­

trolled element of the dependent clause is always interpreted as the pivot.

This is illustrated in the following sentences.

(4) a. Bill persuaded the doctor to examine John.

b. Bill persuaded John to be examined by the doctor.

In sentence (4a), it is the doctor which is the controller of the empty pivot

position which is interpreted as the actor of examine. In sentence (4b), John

is the controller of the empty pivot position which is interpreted as the

undergoer of examine. The controlled element of the dependent clause, the

non-occurring argument of the linked clause, cannot be specified semanti-

cally as actor or undergoer, but rather is the syntactic pivot.

The distribution of the control problem is explained by the RRG

theory of nexus-juncture types. Obligatory control occurs in core junctures

only. In a non-subordinate core juncture, one argument must be shared

between the core juncts. This sharing occurs as a result of the mapping from

logical structure to surface structure (see 'Synopsis', sect. 7.2). FVV (1984)

claims that there are only two possible interpretations for a shared argu­

ment. The first is that the actor of the matrix clause is the same as the

potential pivot of the dependent clause; this is an instance of actor control.

The second possibility is that the undergoer of the matrix predicate is equal

to the potential pivot of the other predicate which it occurs with in a core

juncture; this is undergoer control. However, these two combinations are

true only for non-purpose infinitival constructions. As we shall see in the

discussion of purpose clauses, a third possibility occurs, where the pivot of

the dependent clause is the undergoer. This combination is found in pur­

pose clauses such as the following:

(5) John bought the book to read.