In this reply we examine Culicover and Jackendoff's (2001) arguments against syntactic treatments of control, and against Hornstein 1999 in particular. We focus on three of their core arguments: (a) the syntactocentric view of control; (b) the control pattern found with promise; and (c) the violability of the Minimal Distance Principle. In all cases we contend that Culicover and Jackendoff's claims fail to undermine Hornstein's proposal.

Issue Section:
Remarks and Replies
control, raising, θ-theory, nominal, learnability
This content is only available as a PDF.
© 2003 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
2003
You do not currently have access to this content.