Reply to “Control Is Not Movement”

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.