Abstract

This paper adds a new dimension to the study of obligatory control: the distinction of inherent vs. non-inherent control predicates. Inherent control predicates are clause-embedding predicates that invariantly require identification of one of its individual arguments with an argument of the embedded predicate, irrespective of the type of clausal complement. The paper thus identifies instances of control in German finite verb-final and V2 complements and in nominalized clausal arguments, thereby adding data to the discussion of finite control. The lexical property of inherent control results from various factors: one major factor is event coherence – the respective predicates and their clausal complements denote a coherent event, which disallows incompatible local and temporal modifiers in matrix clause and embedded clause (e.g. with implicative verbs such as wagen 'dare'). As a consequence, matrix predicate and embedded predicate have to share at least one participant. In addition, there are various subgroups of inherent control predicates that do not exhibit event coherence. Here, the inherence of the control relation results a) from the sincerity conditions of the matrix predicates (with directive and commissive predicates), b) the fact that the clausal argument is integrated as “direct predication” of the matrix predicate's internal argument (e.g. vorwerfen 'reproach'), or c) semantic specialization of the matrix predicate in contrast to semantically similar predicates, which involves self-related attitudes or speech acts (e.g. bereuen 'regret/repent').