{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029411764705882353, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.405882352941177, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Syntactic vs. Semantic Control

This paper investigates the interaction of the syntax and semantics of infinitival constructions. It is argued that there is a close connection between the syntactic structure (the presence vs. absence of an infinitival PRO subject) and the interpretation (obligatory vs. non-obligatory control) of infinitival constructions. The main claim is that obligatory control is determined lexically/semantically, whereas non-obligatory control is determined syntactically. While obligatory control is compatible with a subjectless (i.e., PRO-less) infinitive, non-obligatory control requires the presence of a syntactic PRO subject. Empirical evidence for the absence vs. presence of a syntactic PRO subject comes from the A-movement (restructuring) and binding properties in infinitival constructions. Finally, binding and the interpretation of it-anaphors shows that the correlation between obligatory control and the lack of a syntactic subject is only a one-way correlation and that the syntactic structure cannot be fully reduced to the semantic prope rties.