Icelandic control really is A-movement: Reply to Bobaljik and Landau

Cedric Boeckx, Norbert Hornstein, Jairo Nunes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

24 Citations (Scopus)


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. © 2010 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)111-130
JournalLinguistic Inquiry
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2010


  • Case concord
  • Case transmission
  • Control
  • Icelandic
  • Movement theory of control
  • PRO
  • Raising


Dive into the research topics of 'Icelandic control really is A-movement: Reply to Bobaljik and Landau'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this