SEMANTIC AND SYNTACTIC FACTORS IN CONTROL 1873.2.2 Non-causativeInon-directives
The above discussion has outlined the control of causative/directives, com
missives, purpose clauses, and purposives. We have left out one category of
core juncture with an obligatory control relation, illustrated by the follow-
(44) a. John tried to go.
b. John wanted to go.
John began to go.
d. John forgot to do his homework.
e. John remembered to buy milk.
f. John decided to go to Europe.All of these take actor control. No other possible controller is present or
evoked by the semantics of the verb. This follows from two facts: first that
they are all non-subordinate core junctures which must share a core argu
ment, and second, there is only one core argument in the matrix clause. A
second argument or undergoer is not allowed. Moreover, these verbs
encode some agency, volition, responsibility, or mental preparedness to do
an event, on the part of the actor. There is no causative sense or transfer of
an item; thus, actor control is expected.
3.2.3 Real world knowledge and speech act verbs
According to the FVV analysis, ask may function as a polite directive, as in
(45a) below, and as a request for something, as in (45b) below.
(45) a. John asked Mary to leave.
b. John asked Mary to be allowed to leave.
In example (45a), John tries to get Mary to do something through use of a
polite directive. Because ask is functioning as a directive, undergoer control
is predicted. In (45b), because of the to be allowed phrase, John is asking
Mary for permission to leave. Because he is making a request for some
thing, and not using a polite directive, actor control is predicted. Both of
these predictions are correct.
The presence of two possible readings for (46) indicates that ask is
semantically ambiguous between the directive and request readings.
(46) The little girl asked the teacher to sit down.