CP under control*

Control constructions typically do not have an overt subject, the embedded clause typically does not have a complementizer, and the embedded verb typically does not have any tense morphology. The standard analysis of control structures from Chomsky and Lasnik (1995) is given in (1), where the embedded clause is a CP with a [-finite] TP as the complement of C. The subject of the control clauses is PRO, receiving null case from the defective T. Pro can be interpreted because it is controlled by an antecedent in the matrix clause. (1) [CP[TP Johni [VP hopes [CP[TP PROi to [VP get the tickets]]]]]] Hornstein (1999, 2001) proposes an alternative analysis of control. He divides control structures in two classes: Obligatory control (OC) and Non-obligatory control (NOC), and takes obligatory control structures to be a result of movement parallel to raising constructions. Under this analysis, OC PRO is a trace of the moved argument the controller in the matrix clause, while the NOC PRO is just a small pro. Hornstein's analysis is sketched in (2). The details are suppressed since they are not important at this point. (2) [IP John [VP hopes [IP John to [VP get the tickets]]]