On Control

Minimalist Syntax

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 6-81

  Hornstein, Norbert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

Control verbs; Dualism; Phrase markers; Raising verbs; Universal grammar (ug

Indexed keywords

EID: 84949473589     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9780470758342.ch1     Document Type: Chapter

References (95)

1. Aoshima, S. (2001). Mono-clausality in Japanese Obligatory Control Constructions. Unpublished manuscript. University of Maryland, College Park.
2. Aoun, J., Choueiri, L. and Hornstein, N. (2001). Resumption, movement and derivational economy. Linguistic Inquiry.
3. Belletti, A. and Rizzi, L. (1988). Psych-verbs and θ-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6, 291-352.
4. Bobaljik, J. and Brown, S. (1997). Interarboreal operations: head movement and the extension requirement. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 357-66.
5. Boeckx, C. (2000). A note on contraction. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 357-66.
6. Boskovic, Z. (1994). D-structure, theta-criterion, and movement into theta-positions. Linguistic Analysis, 24, 247-86.
7. Boskovic, Z. (1997). The syntax of nonfinite complementation: An economic approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8. Boskovic, Z. (2001). Floating quantifiers and theta role assignment, Proceedings of NELS, 31.
9. Boskovic, Z. and Takahashi, D. (1998). Scrambling and last resort. Linguistic Inquiry, 29, 347-66.
10. Bouchard, D. (1984). On the content of empty categories. Dordrecht: Foris.
11. Bowers, J. (1973). Grammatical relations, PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge (reprinted as The Theory of Grammatical Relations (1981). New York: Garland).
12. Bresnan, J. (1982). Control and complementation. In J. Bresnan (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13. Brugger, G. (1997). Expletive auxiliaries. Unpublished manuscript. UCLA.
14. Burzio, L. (1986). Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel.
15. Castillo, J. C., Drury, J. E., and Grohmann, K. K. (1999). Merge over move and the extended projection principle. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics. Vol. 8, 63-103.
16. Chomsky, C. (1969). The acquisition of syntax in children from 5 to 10. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
18. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Chomsky, N. (1980). On binding. Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 1-46.
20. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
21. Chomsky, N. (1993). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20. Essays in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. Chomsky, N. (1998). Minimalist issues: the framework. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics. Vol. 15, Cambridge, MA. MITWPL. To appear in R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. Chomsky, N. (1999). Derivation by phase. MS, Cambridge, MA: MIT.
25. Chomsky, N. and Lasnik, H. (1977). Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(3).
26. Chomsky, N. and Lasnik, H. (1993). The theory of principles and parameters. In Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld, and Theo Vennemann (eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter. Reprinted in Chomsky (1995), The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 13-127.
27. Comrie, B. (1984). Subject and object control: syntax, semantics and pragmatics. BLS, 10, 450-64.
28. Culicover, P. and Jackendoff, R. (2000). Control is mostly semantic. MS. Ohio State and Brandeis University.
29. Culicover, P. and Jackendoff, R. (2001). Control is not movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 493-511.
30. Enç, Murvet (1990). On the absence of the present tense morpheme in English. University of Wisconsin, Madison. Unpublished manuscript.
31. Epstein, S. D. (1984). Quantifier-pro and the LF representation of PRO-arb. Linguistic Inquiry, 15.
32. Epstein, S. D. and Seely, T. D. (2000). SPEC-ifying the GF subject: eliminating A-Chains and the EPP within a derivational model. MS, University of Michigan.
33. Epstein, S. D., Groat, E. M., Kawashima, R., and Kitahara, H. (1998). A derivational approach to syntactic relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34. Farkas, D. F. (1988). On Obligatory Control. Linguistics and Philosophy, 11, 27-58.
35. Farrell, P. (1995). Backward control in Brazilian Portuguese. In J. M. Fuller, H. Han, and D. Parkinson (eds.), Proceedings of ESCOL'94. Ithaca, NY: Department of Linguistics and Modern Languages, Cornell University. (pp. 116-27).
36. Ferreira, M. (2000). Hyperraising and null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese. MS. Univesidade Estadual do Campinas, Campinas.
37. Fodor, J. (1975). The language of thought. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
38. González, N. (1988). Object raising in Spanish. New York: Garland.
39. González, N. (1990). Unusual inversion in Chilean Spanish. In P. Postal and B. Joseph (eds.), Studies in Relational Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
40. Groat, E. (1999). Raising the case of expletives. In Samuel D. Epstein, and Norbert Hornstein (eds.), Working minimalism. (pp. 27-44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41. Harada, S.-I. (1973). Counter-equi NP deletion. Research Institute of Logopedics and Phoniatrics Annual Bulletin, 7, 113-47.
42. Higginbotham, J. (1980). Pronouns and bound variables. Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 679-708.
43. Higginbotham, J. (1992). Reference and control. In R. Larson, S. Iatridou, U. Lahiri, and J. Higginbotham (eds.), Control and grammar (pp. 79-108). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
44. Hornstein, N. (1990). Verb raising in Icelandic infinitives. NELS, 20, 215-229.
45. Hornstein, N. (1997). Control in GB and Minimalism. Glot International, 2(8) (reprinted in Cheng and R. Sybesma (eds.), The first glot international state-of-the-article book (2000). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
46. Hornstein, N. (1999). Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 69-96.
47. Hornstein, N. (2000). Move! a minimalist theory of construal. Oxford: Blackwell.
48. Huang, C.-T. J. (1983). A note on the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 14, 554-61.
49. Keenan, E. (1987). A semantic definition of "indefinite NP", in Eric Reuland and Alice ter Meulen (eds.), The representation of (in)definiteness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, (pp. 286-317).
50. Keenan, E. (1989). A semantic definition of indefinite NP. In E. Reuland and A. G. B. ter Meulen (eds.), The representation of (in)definiteness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
51. Kiguchi, H. (2000). PRO-gate and movement, Generals Paper, University of Maryland, College Park.
52. Kiguchi, H. and Hornstein, N. (2001). PRO-gate and (sidewards) movement. MS, University of Maryland, College Park.
53. Kitihara, H. (1997). Elementary operations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
54. Koster, J. (1984). On binding and control. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 417-59.
55. Kuno, S. (1975). Three perspectives in the functional approach to syntax. Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism: Chicago Linguistics Society, April 17, 276-336.
56. Kuroda, S. Y. (1965). Generative studies in the Japanese language. Doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
57. Kuroda, S. Y. (1978). Case marking, canonical sentence patterns, and counter-equi in Japanese. In John Hinds and Irwin Howard (eds.), Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. (pp. 30-51).
58. Lakoff, G. (1970). Irregularity in syntax. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
59. Landau, I. (1999). Elements of control. PhD Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.
60. Larson, R. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 335-91.
61. Lasnik, H. (1995a). Last resort. In S. Haraguchi and M. Funaki (eds.), Minimalism and linguistic theory (pp. 1-32). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
62. Lasnik, H. (1995b). Last resort and attract F. In Proceedings of FLSM 6 (pp. 62-81). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
63. Lasnik, H. and Saito, M. (1992). Move a: Conditions on its application and output. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
64. Lasnik, H. and Uriagereka, J. (1988). A course in GB syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
65. Lebeaux, D. (1984-5). Locality and anaphoric binding. The Linguistic Review, 343-63.
66. Lidz, J. and Isardi, W. J. (1997). Chains and phonological form, in A. Dimitraidis, H. Lee, C. Moisset, and A. Williams (eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 8, 109-25.
67. Manzini, M. R. (1983). On control and control theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 14, 421-46.
68. Manzini, M. R. and Roussou, A. (2000). A minimalist theory of A-movement and control. Lingua, 409-47.
69. Martin, R. (1996). A minimalist theory of PRO and control. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
70. Modesto, M. (2000). Null subjects and rich agreement. In M. Kato and E. Negão (eds.), Brazilian Portuguese and the null subject parameter. Frankfurt am Main: Verbuert.
71. Motomura, M. (2001). Zibun as a Residue of Overt A-Movement. Generals Paper, University of Maryland, College Park.
72. Nunes, J. (1995). The copy theory of movement and linearization of chains in the minimalist program, PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
73. O'Neill, J. (1995). Out of control. In J. N. Beckman (ed.), Proceedings of NELS 25 (pp. 361-71). GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
74. Perlmutter, D. (1970). On the article in English. In Manfred Bierwisch and K. E. Heidolph (eds.), Progress in linguistics (pp. 233-48). The Hague: Mouton.
75. Pires, A. (2001). Clausal and TP-defective gerunds: control without tense. In NELS 31.
76. Pires, A. (forthcoming). The syntax of gerunds and infinitives: subjects, case and control. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
77. Polinsky, M. and Potsdam, E. (2000). Long-distance agreement and topic in Tsez. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 19, 583-646.
78. Polinsky, M. and Potsdam, E. (2001). Backwards control. MS, University of California San Diego and University of Florida, Gainsville.
79. Rodrigues, C. (1990). Deriving Brazilian referential null subjects from movement. Generals Paper, University of Maryland, College Park.
80. Rodrigues, C. (2000). Deriving Brazilian Portuguese null subjects from movement. Unpublished manuscript. University of Maryland, College Park.
81. Rosenbaum, P. (1967). The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
82. Rosenbaum, P. (1970). A principle governing deletion in English sentential complementations. In R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar (pp. 20-9). Waltham, MA: Ginn.
83. Roussou, A. and Manzini, R. (1997). Null arguments in early child grammars. GALA Proceedings UK. Durham, UK: University of Durham. (pp. 142-7).
84. Saito, M. (1992). Long distance scrambling in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 1, 69-118.
85. Salmon, N. (1986). Reflexivity. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 27, 401-29.
86. Sells, P. (1987). Aspects of Logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry, 18, 445-80.
87. Sigursson, H. A. (1989). Verbal syntax and case in Icelandic. PhD dissertation, University of Reykjavik, Reykjavik.
88. Sigursson, H. A. (1991). Icelandic case marked PRO and the licensing of lexical arguments. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 9, 327-63.
89. Stowell, T. (1982). The tense of infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry, 13, 561-70.
90. Thráinsson, H. (1986). On auxilliaries, AUX and VPs in Icelandic. In L. Hellan and K. K. Christensen (eds.), Topics in Scandanavian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel.
91. Uriagereka, J. (1998). Rhyme and reason. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
92. Williams, E. (1980). Predication. Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 203-38.
93. Williams, E. (1982). The NP cycle. Linguistic Inquiry, 13, 277-93.
94. Williams, E. (1994). Thematic structure in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
95. Wurmbrand, S. (1998). Infinitives. PhD dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.