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.

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.

We examine the three categories of empirical argument that Landau (2003) puts forward against a movement theory of control (MTC): overgeneration cases, alleged arguments in favor of an MTC, and raising/control contrasts. We show that the problems cited either have plausible alternative analyses that leave the MTC unscathed or, in fact, are not nearly as dire for the MTC as Landau supposes. We conclude that the “standard” theory enjoys no obvious empirical advantages over the MTC and that the MTC is superior on conceptual and methodological grounds.

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.