Icelandic Control Really Is A-Movement: Reply to Bobaljik and Landau

Abstract

This article discusses the challenges that Bobaljik and Landau (2009) pose to Boeckx and Hornstein's (2006) movement-based analysis of control in Icelandic. We show in detail that contrary to what Bobaljik and Landau claim, the movement theory of control (with a modification to accommodate quirky Case, a specialty of Icelandic) makes the right empirical cuts regarding the issues they raise, namely, (a) the differences in Case agreement between control and raising constructions, (b) the different patterns of Case transmission (un)available, and (c) the fact that allegedly Case-marked PROs are phonetically null. We argue that rather than being problematic, the data bearing on these issues actually provide independent support to the movement theory of control.

Experimental evidence of variation and gradience in the syntax and semantics of transitive subject control

“…Through this, he renders the existence of a separate control module unnecessary. A radical proposal such as this has not been without controversy and debate about its merits has been rich (Culicover and Jackendoff, 2001;Boeckx et al, 2010;Bobaljik and Landau, 2009;Landau, 2003;Boeckx and Hornstein, 2004;Hornstein and Polinsky, 2010). Leaving aside its feasibility, however, most importantly for our purposes here, it does not improve the account of transitive subject control.…”

Some Purported Problems for the Movement Theory of Control

“…Wood makes some brief remarks on the falsifiability of BH&N's (2010b) theory: 10 Therefore, a notational variant of Boeckx, Hornstein, and Nunes's (2010b) analysis might say that DPs need ''-complete valuation'' rather than Case valuation, and then draw some strong formal connection between certain morphological case values and agreement with different -complete probes, while maintaining the position that control sentences are derived by A-movement. While raising and control would then be similar in that they both involve A-movement out of an infinitive, they would differ precisely where Boeckx, Hornstein, and Nunes (2010a,b) claim they do: only the latter involves movement into a -position.…”

Backward Raising

“…We assume that the ability of a DP to check Case multiple times is an option available in (at least some) languages. The Case feature is revalued so that the DP only ever has one Case feature value at a time (see Bejar & Massam 1999; Bobaljik & Branigan 2006; Merchant 2009; Boeckx, Hornstein & Nunes 2010). Multiple case checking phenomena clearly exist crosslinguistically (Massam 1985; Belletti 1988; McCreight 1988; Harbert 1989; Yoon 1996, 2004; Nordlinger 1998; Bejar & Massam 1999; Miller 2002; Sigurðsson 2004; Woolford 2006; Merchant 2009) and so this move seems empirically justified.…”