178 L. MICHELLE CUTRER
Comparing (24a) and (24b), we see that both examples of clausal juncture
exhibit the same coreference facts. In both, the actor deleted under confer
ence in the second clause is the pivot. In English, pivots are pragmatic in
nature, (cf. section 2, "Synopsis", section 4.4), influenced by the syntactici-
zation of discourse topicality.
A further similarity between rationale and coordinate constructions is
that any verb may appear in the matrix clause. The lack of restrictions on
choice of the matrix verb is a typical feature of clausal junctures; the looser
the clause linkage, the fewer the restrictions on the matrix verb.
3.1.2 Purpose clauses
Control in purpose clauses is somewhat more complicated, as there may be
two gaps and two control relations. Because there is an obligatorily shared
argument, purpose clauses are a type of core juncture. The obligatory gap,
however, is post-verbal. The pivot in these constructions is the post-verbal
gap, rather than the subject gap; the central syntactic feature of these
clauses is this post-verbal pivot. This post-verbal gap is obligatorily con
trolled by an argument in the matrix core.
(25) a. John bought a tape to listen to.
b. John caught a fish to eat for dinner.
John chose a movie to watch.
Semantically, purpose clauses encode the purpose to which a thing or
entity is put. The matrix core always expresses some use, obtaining, availa
bility, possession, or transfer of possession of the item. The complement
clause expresses the purpose to which the thing will be put, what will be
done with the item chosen, used, at one's disposal, possessed or transfer
red. The entity functions in both cores; in the matrix core it is syntactically
overt and we are given some information about its position or possession, in
the linked core it is not syntactically realized and we are given information
about what is done with it.
Bach (1982) proposes that there are heavy restrictions on the choice of
matrix verb with purpose clauses. Purpose clauses are a type of core
juncture, and involve a tighter linkage than clausal junctures. FW claim
that the tighter the linkage, the greater the semantic restrictions imposed
upon the linkage. (See FW, section 6.4.5.) Therefore, core junctures will
be subject to greater restrictions on the choice of the matrix verb than will
clausal junctures.