On the Movement Theory of Obligatory Control: Voices from Standard Indonesian

2011 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 267-275
Author(s):  
Yosuke Sato
Keyword(s):  
Obligatory Control ◽  
Movement Theory

scholarly journals Obligatory Control in Irish and Polish: A Reappraisal

2010 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 89-102
Author(s):  
Anna Bondaruk ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Partial Control ◽  
Obligatory Control ◽  
Movement Theory ◽  
Short Overview ◽  
Empty Category ◽  
P Movement ◽  
Finite Clause

Obligatory control (henceforth, OC) has constituted a topic extensively discussed in the literature (cf., for instance, Williams (1980), Landau (2000), Wurmbrand (2001)). Recently the controversy over OC has climaxed in the emergence of two rivaling approaches, deriving it via two distinct mechanisms. The movement theory of control, advocated by Hornstein (1999, 2001, 2003), Boeckx and Hornstein (2004, 2006), among others, derives OC by means of the N(D)P-movement of the alleged controller of PRO without posting PRO as a separate empty category altogether. The latter approach – the calculus of control proposed by Landau (2004, 2008) – maintaining the existence of PRO, obtains OC thanks to the interplay between C and I found in the non-finite clause. The present paper is rooted within the second approach and its main objective consists in providing an analysis of OC in Irish and Polish. The paper starts with a short overview of two subtypes of OC, i.e. exhaustive and partial control. This is followed by a brief outline of Landau’s (2004, 2008) model. Afterwards, an attempt is made to analyse Irish and Polish OC within Landau’s calculus of control.

scholarly journals Icelandic Control Is Not A-Movement: The Case from Case

2009 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan David Bobaljik ◽  
Idan Landau
Keyword(s):  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Subsequent Work ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Case Assignment ◽  
Obligatory Control ◽  
Movement Theory ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Infinitival Complements ◽  
Domain Independent

A rich literature on Icelandic syntax has established that infinitival complements of obligatory control verbs constitute a case assignment domain independent from the matrix clause, and in this differ systematically from all types of A-movement, which manifest case dependence/preservation. As Landau (2003) has observed, these facts provide significant counterevidence to the movement theory of control (Hornstein 1999 and subsequent work). Boeckx and Hornstein (2006a) attempt to defend this theory in light of data from Icelandic. We offer here a review of the relevant literature, and we show that Boeckx and Hornstein's reply fails on several counts. We further argue that contrary to their claims, PRO in Icelandic receives structural rather than default (nominative) case, leaving the movement theory with no account for the distinction between PRO and lexical subjects.

Reviewing Minimalist Theories of Control and a Brief Look at Romanian Control

2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 201-214
Author(s):  
Mihaela Buzec
Keyword(s):  
Present Article ◽  
Generative Grammar ◽  
Minimalist Program ◽  
Obligatory Control ◽  
Movement Theory ◽  
Applied Model ◽  
Control Theories

"Reviewing Minimalist Theories of Control and a Brief Look at Romanian Control. The phenomenon of control is a long-discussed topic within the enterprise of generative grammar. Multiple theories were composed and dismissed along with the advancement of the module, and with the development of the Minimalist program, more recent theories on control came to surface. The present article provides a review of two minimalist theories of control: the Movement Theory of Control and the Agree Model of Obligatory Control. A synopsis of one applied model of the MTC on Romanian data is also part of the paper, as is a brief commentary on the structure of Romanian control, namely an exploration of the tension between subjunctive and infinitive control complements. Keywords: control theories, minimalist program, Romanian control, Agree Model of Control, Movement Theory of Control "

Not all obligatory control is movement

2020 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
pp. 893-906
Author(s):  
FYODOR BAYKOV ◽  
PAVEL RUDNEV
Keyword(s):  
Obligatory Control ◽  
Movement Theory

This squib presents two challenges for the analysis of promise-type verbs within the Movement Theory of Control. We show that the objects of these verbs in Russian are not prepositional and are incorrectly predicted to be legitimate controllers. We also argue against analysing oblique control as movement.

scholarly journals Logophoric Centers as Antecedents of NOC PRO: Evidence from Turkish Subject Infinitives

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 53
Author(s):  
Duygu Göksu
Keyword(s):  
Control Structure ◽  
Control Analysis ◽  
Obligatory Control ◽  
Movement Theory ◽  
Infinitival Clauses

This paper questions the mechanism behind the control structure observed in subject infinitival clauses in Turkish. After comparing the main points of the proposals in the Movement Theory of Control in Boeckx, Hornstein, and Nunes (2010), pragmatics based Non-Obligatory Control analysis in Landau (2013), and the UPro Approach in McFadden and Sundaresan (2016), I conclude with the claim that these are logophoric center sensitive NOC structures.

Backyards, NIMBYs, and Incinerator Sitings: Implications for Social Movement Theory

1993 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward Walsh ◽  
Rex Warland ◽  
D. Clayton Smith
Keyword(s):  
Social Movement ◽  
Social Movement Theory ◽  
Movement Theory
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document