Icelandic Control Is Not A-Movement: The Case from Case
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 Land...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | en_US |
| Published: |
MIT Press
2011
|
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/67580 |
| _version_ | 1826202920209612800 |
|---|---|
| author | Landau, Idan Bobaljik, Jonathan David |
| author2 | Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy |
| author_facet | Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy Landau, Idan Bobaljik, Jonathan David |
| author_sort | Landau, Idan |
| collection | MIT |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-09-23T12:26:40Z |
| format | Article |
| id | mit-1721.1/67580 |
| institution | Massachusetts Institute of Technology |
| language | en_US |
| last_indexed | 2024-09-23T12:26:40Z |
| publishDate | 2011 |
| publisher | MIT Press |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | mit-1721.1/675802022-09-28T07:59:39Z Icelandic Control Is Not A-Movement: The Case from Case Landau, Idan Bobaljik, Jonathan David Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy Landau, Idan Landau, Idan 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. Israel Science Foundation (grant 27/05) 2011-12-09T21:27:21Z 2011-12-09T21:27:21Z 2009-12 Article http://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticle 1530-9150 0024-3892 http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/67580 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. en_US http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/lin/summary/v040/40.1.bobaljik.html Linguistic Inquiry 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. application/pdf MIT Press MIT Press |
| spellingShingle | Landau, Idan Bobaljik, Jonathan David Icelandic Control Is Not A-Movement: The Case from Case |
| title | Icelandic Control Is Not A-Movement: The Case from Case |
| title_full | Icelandic Control Is Not A-Movement: The Case from Case |
| title_fullStr | Icelandic Control Is Not A-Movement: The Case from Case |
| title_full_unstemmed | Icelandic Control Is Not A-Movement: The Case from Case |
| title_short | Icelandic Control Is Not A-Movement: The Case from Case |
| title_sort | icelandic control is not a movement the case from case |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/67580 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT landauidan icelandiccontrolisnotamovementthecasefromcase AT bobaljikjonathandavid icelandiccontrolisnotamovementthecasefromcase |