This article examines a pervasive argument against a movement approach to control based on Icelandic concord facts. We show that the argument does not undermine the movement approach when the facts are considered in their entirety. The facts divide into two basic groups: instances of quirky Case assignment and instances of structural Case sharing. The former require some theoretical adjustments regarding multiply Case-marked NPs in order to be incorporated into a movement approach. We show that the adjustments needed may be independently required, and may be even more problematic for alternative views on control.
This content is only available as a PDF.
© 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology