Reply to “Control Is Not Movement”-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Reply to “Control Is Not Movement”

Published:2003-04 Issue:2 Volume:34 Page:269-280
ISSN:0024-3892
Container-title:Linguistic Inquiry
language:en
Short-container-title:Linguistic Inquiry

Author:

Boeckx Cedric¹,Hornstein Norbert¹

Affiliation:

1. Department of Linguistics, 1401 Marie Mount Hall, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742,

Abstract

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.

Publisher

MIT Press - Journals

Subject

Linguistics and Language,Language and Linguistics

Link

https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/002438903321663406

Reference6 articles.

1. Conflicting C‐command requirements

2. Control Is Not Movement

3. Movement and Control

4. A minimalist theory of A-movement and control

Cited by 66 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Control and intermediate scrambling: An investigation of Kazakh relative clauses;Glossa: a journal of general linguistics;2024-07-31

2. Non-control aspects of the Korean yaksokha-construction;LINGUIST RES;2023

3. Introduction. Non-canonical control in a cross-linguistic perspective;Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today;2021-08-15

4. Mandative verbs and deontic modals in Russian: Between obligatory control and overt embedded subjects;Glossa: a journal of general linguistics;2020-06-08

5. Silently Structured Silent Argument;Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today;2020-04-29