dc.creatorBOECKX, Cedric
dc.creatorHORNSTEIN, Norbert
dc.creatorNUNES, Jairo
dc.date.accessioned2012-10-19T14:56:57Z
dc.date.accessioned2018-07-04T15:02:51Z
dc.date.available2012-10-19T14:56:57Z
dc.date.available2018-07-04T15:02:51Z
dc.date.created2012-10-19T14:56:57Z
dc.date.issued2010
dc.identifierLINGUISTIC INQUIRY, v.41, n.1, p.111-130, 2010
dc.identifier0024-3892
dc.identifierhttp://producao.usp.br/handle/BDPI/21076
dc.identifier10.1162/ling.2010.41.1.111
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1162/ling.2010.41.1.111
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/1617853
dc.description.abstractThis 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.
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherM I T PRESS
dc.relationLinguistic Inquiry
dc.rightsCopyright M I T PRESS
dc.rightsrestrictedAccess
dc.subjectmovement theory of control
dc.subjectIcelandic
dc.subjectCase concord
dc.subjectCase transmission
dc.subjectcontrol
dc.subjectraising
dc.subjectPRO
dc.titleIcelandic Control Really Is A-Movement: Reply to Bobaljik and Landau
dc.typeArtículos de revistas


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución