Ndayiragije (2012) and Wood (2012) present arguments against the movement theory of control (MTC) based on data from Kirundi and Icelandic, respectively. We show that these data are easily accounted for by current formulations of the MTC.

Bošković ( 2005 , 2008 ) outlines a phase-based analysis of adjunct extraction in determinerless languages like Serbo-Croatian (SC). The analysis is modeled on recent phase-based analyses of P(reposition)-stranding (see Abels 2003 , 2012 ) wherein the richness of the functional structure of the PP determines whether extraction is possible. This squib identifies a problem for a unified analysis of these two phenomena. Bans on adjunct extraction are obviated under sluicing while bans on P-stranding are not.

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.

This article investigates the interaction between resumption and movement. Lebanese Arabic distinguishes between true resumption, where a pronoun or an epithet phrase is related to an Ā -antecedent via Bind, and apparent resumption, where the pronoun or the epithet phrase is related to its Ā -antecedent via Move. Only apparent resumption displays reconstruction effects for scope and binding. As resumptives, strong pronouns and epithet phrases cannot be related to a quantificational antecedent unless they occur inside islands. We account for this Obviation Requirement as follows: (a) (true) resumption is a last resort device, (b) strong pronouns and epithet phrases in apparent resumption contexts are generated as appositive modifiers of a DP, which is fronted to an Ā -position, and (c) appositive modifiers are interpreted as independent clauses. Obviation is reduced to the inability of quantifiers to bind a pronominal element across sentential boundaries.

Since the earliest days of generative grammar, control has been distinguished from raising: the latter the product of movement operations, the former the result of construal processes relating a PRO to an antecedent. This article argues that obligatory control structures are also formed by movement. Minimalism makes this approach viable by removing D-Structure as a grammatical level. Implementing the suggestion, however, requires eliminating the last vestiges of D-Structure still extant in Chomsky's (1995) version of the Minimalist Program. In particular, it requires dispensing with the θ-Criterion and adopting the view that θ-roles are featurelike in being able to license movement.