ИСТИНА

It has been widely assumed since Rosenbaum 1965 that infinitival complement constructions fall into two classes involving raising and control. A number of diagnostics suggest that Russian infinitival complement constructions with directive predicates involve object control (Comrie 1984; Kozinskij 1985; Babby 1998). However, Minor (2011, 2013) observes that Russian object control constructions with speech act matrix verbs (velet’ ‘order’, posovetovat’ ‘advise’, etc.) allow for their dative object to be interpreted within the infinitival clause, thus pointing towards raising-to-object/ECM analysis (Vrač posovetoval komu-nibud’ sxodit’ za lekarstvami ‘The doctor advised for someone to get some medicine.’). Minor’s data include quantificational objects, nibud’-pronouns and ni-pronouns. Minor suggests a “mixed” structure where the object originates and remains in the embedded clause but receives case and thematic role from the matrix verb. This analysis has a number of undesirable consequences and, more importantly, fails to restrict “mixed” constructions to speech act object control verbs. Yet subject control verbs and the rest of object control verbs reject arguments which need embedded scope to be licensed. Our contribution to the topic is twofold. First, we present new data from Russian control constructions suggesting that ni-licensing and other embedded scope phenomena have to be treated apart. Secondly, we propose analyses for both of them. We argue that ni-pronouns, which are licensed in various control configurations (cf. Udalos' nikomu ne razbolet'sja ‘(We) managed (to make sure for) nobody to get sick’) are negative floating quantifiers construed with PRO, the latter being controlled by an implicit argument in the matrix clause. Control configurations licensing embedded scope phenomena involve speech act control verbs exclusively. The crucial observation is that the same scopal relations are found in imperative constructions with indefinite vocatives (Kto-nibud', vyzovite skoruju pomoš'! ‘Anybody call an ambulance!’). We propose that both imperative and embedded infinitive directive constructions share a substantial part of syntactic structure, namely, syntactically represented speech act coordinates, which comprise Author and Addressee (Speas, Tenny 2003; Hill 2007, 2014; Haegeman, Hill 2013, Landau 2015). Arguments with embedded scope are licensed under speech act jussive modality and then raise to Addressee position.