190 L. MICHELLE CUTRER
Indirect questions are examples of core subordination. The infinitival
core as a whole functions as an argument of the matrix verb. As there is no
obligatorily shared argument, we expect such structures to have arbitrary
control. Moreover, the theory predicts that arbitrary control should only be
possible in subordinate nexus, where there is no possibility of an obligator
ily shared argument. It is possible for there to be an evoked controller in
arbitrary control structures, as influenced by speech act and pragmatic con
siderations. When an indirect question occurs with ask, there is a strong
tendency to interpret ask as a polite request. So, actor control is a possible
interpretation. However, the content of the indirect question, how to... or
what to..., may counteract the speech-act considerations. That is, an
unspecified group, not just the subject, may want to know how to or what
to do. Note that with indirect questions the gap is obligatory, i.e. it may not
be filled, although the control relation is not obligatory. This distinguishes
the type of gap in indirect questions from the subject gap of purpose
clauses, where there are also alternate interpretations of controller possi
ble.
The fact that indirect questions can be passivized, provides evidence of
the arbitrary/obligatory control distinction. Consider (51).
(51) a. John asked Bill what to do.
b. John promised Bill to go.
Both of the above sentences exhibit actor control. Sentence (51a) is a core
subordinate juncture, and arbitrary control is predicted. However, speech
act considerations may override the arbitrary interpretation and allow the
actor as controller. Sentence (51b) is a commissive; the actor is an obliga
tory controller. Though both may be interpreted as actor controlled, they
behave differently when passivized as a result of the obligatory/arbitrary
control distinction.
(52) a. Bill was asked what to do.
b. * Bill was promised to go.
In (52a), the sentence remains grammatical even though the possible actor
controller is deleted under passivization; the arbitrary control reading is the
only possible one. In (52b) however, when the actor controller is deleted
under passivization, the sentence is rendered ungrammatical, because it is
an obligatory control structure and the obligatory controller is deleted. This
is further evidence that indirect questions are arbitrary control structures,