Abstract

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.

pdf

Additional Information

ISSN
1530-9150
Print ISSN
0024-3892
Pages
pp. 591-606
Launched on MUSE
2006-11-02
Open Access
No
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.