Icelandic Control Is Not A-Movement: The Case from Case
Name
Landau-Icelandic Control.pdf
Size
491.28 KB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum (MD5)
407f1edce944fbfb3d6a62c110e3529c
Author(s)
Landau, Idan
Bobaljik, Jonathan David
Date Issued
December 2009
Journal
Linguistic Inquiry
Publisher
MIT Press
Citation
Landau, Idan and Jonathan David Bobaljik. "Icelandic Control Is Not A-Movement: The Case from Case." Linguistic Inquiry, Volume 40, Number 1, Winter 2009, pp. 113-154. © 2009 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Version
Final published version
Abstract
A rich literature on Icelandic syntax has established that infinitival complements of obligatory control verbs constitute a case assignment domain independent from the matrix clause, and in this differ systematically from all types of A-movement, which manifest case dependence/ preservation. As Landau (2003) has observed, these facts provide significant counterevidence to the movement theory of control (Hornstein 1999 and subsequent work). Boeckx and Hornstein (2006a) attempt to defend this theory in light of data from Icelandic. We offer here a review of the relevant literature, and we show that Boeckx and Hornstein’s reply fails on several counts. We further argue that contrary to their claims, PRO in Icelandic receives structural rather than default (nominative) case, leaving the movement theory with no account for the distinction between PRO and lexical subjects.
MIT Department
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy
Terms of Use
Article is made available in accordance with the publisher's policy and may be subject to US copyright law. Please refer to the publisher's site for terms of use.
Persistent DSpace Link
DOI of Published Version
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/lin/summary/v040/40.1.bobaljik.html
