Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-lfk5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-19T20:28:44.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Implicit Control Crosslinguistically

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Marcel Pitteroff  and
Florian Schäfer
Marcel Pitteroff*
Affiliation:
Universität Stuttgart
Florian Schäfer*
Affiliation:
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
*
Pitteroff, Universität Stuttgart, Institut für Linguistik/Anglistik, Keplerstraße 17, 70174 Stuttgart, Germany [marcelpitteroff@googlemail.com]
Schäfer, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institut für Anglistik/Amerikanistik, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany [florian.schaefer.2@hu-berlin.de]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In Landau 2015, it is proposed that the acceptability of implicit control (i.e. control by the implicit external argument of a passivized verb into complement clauses) is not only restricted by the revised Visser's generalization (van Urk 2013), but also depends on the type of matrix predicate involved. While attitude matrix predicates allow implicit control (IMPLICIT LOGOPHORIC CONTROL), nonattitude matrix predicates do not. Landau takes this bifurcation to support his TWOTIERED THEORY OF CONTROL by assuming that in the case of nonattitude matrix predicates, the control relation is essentially a predication relation, from which implicit arguments are independently excluded. In this article, we subject these claims to empirical scrutiny, showing that Landau's generalization on implicit control holds only in a subset of languages, while other languages license implicit control with both types of matrix predicates. We investigate and reject the hypothesis that this crosslinguistic split is the consequence of different types of implicit arguments, only some of which are syntactically represented in a way that allows them to enter a predication relation. Based on an investigation of the acceptability of agent-modifying depictives in passives, we conclude that, in principle, implicit external arguments of passives in all languages under consideration can enter predication. We show, however, that there is a different correlation: languages that allow implicit control with nonattitude verbs (IMPLICIT PREDICATIVE CONTROL) are exactly those languages that allow impersonal passives of unergative predicates. To account for this correlation, we argue that implicit logophoric control, but not implicit predicative control, can be construed as a personal passive.

Keywords

implicit controlpredicative vs. logophoric control(non)attitude verbsimpersonal passiveexpletivedepictive

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 95 , Issue 1 , March 2019 , pp. 136 - 184
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

Order of authors is alphabetical; both contributed equally to the article. We would like to thank Grant Goodall, Lisa Travis, and three anonymous Language referees for their detailed feedback that helped us improve both the form and the content of this article. We also thank Artemis Alexiadou, Jutta Hartmann, Caroline Heycock, and Idan Landau for helpful discussion, as well as audiences at the 2016 Control Workshop at HU Berlin, the 2017 Cambridge Workshop on Voice, CGSW 32 at the University of Trondheim, and NELS 48 at the University of Iceland for valuable feedback. All remaining errors are ours. Finally, we are very grateful to our numerous informants for their native-language judgments. Pitteroff's work was supported by the DFG-Grant AL 554/10-1; FI 1959/2-1; Schäfer's work was supported by a DFG-grant to the project B6 ‘Under-specification in Voice systems and the syntax-morphology interface’, as part of the Collaborative Research Center 732 Incremental Specification in Context at the University of Stuttgart.

References

Åfarli, Tor A. 2017. Predication in syntax: Toward a semantic explanation of the subject requirement. Understanding predication, ed. by Stalmaszczyk, Piotr, 73–97. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena; and Schäfer, Florian. 2015. External arguments in transitivity alternations: A layering approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Gehrke, Berit; and Schäfer, Florian. 2014. The argument structure of adjectival participles revisited. Lingua 149. 118-38. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, and Schäfer, Florian. 2011. An unaccusativity diagnostic at the syntax-semantics interface: There-insertion, indefinites and restitutive again. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 15. 101-15. Online: http://universaar.uni-saarland.de/monographien/volltexte/2011/30/artikel/Alexiadou_Schaefer_sub15.pdf.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Schäfer, Florian; and Spathas, Giorgos. 2014. Delimiting Voice in Germanic: On object drop and naturally reflexive verbs. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 44. 1–14.Google Scholar
Alrenga, Peter. 2005. A sentential subject asymmetry in English and its implications for complement selection. Syntax 8. 175–207. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9612.2005.00078.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Authier, Jean-Marc, and Reed, Lisa. 2018. Symmetric reciprocal semantics as a predictor of partial control. Linguistic Inquiry 49. 379-93. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babby, Leonard. 1973. The deep structure of adjectives and participles in Russian. Language 49. 349-60. DOI: 10.2307/412458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bennis, Hans. 1986. Gaps and dummies. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Bennis, Hans, and Hoeckstra, Teun. 1989. PRO and the binding theory. Linguistics in the Netherlands 1989. 11–20.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh, and Pancheva, Roumyana. 2006. Implicit arguments. The Blackwell companion to syntax, ed. by Everaert, Martin and Riemsdijk, Henk van, 554-84. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9780470996591.ch34.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh, and Pancheva, Roumyana. 2017. Implicit arguments. The Wiley Blackwell companion to syntax, 2nd edn., ed. by Everaert, Martin and Riemsdijk, Henk van. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom118.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric, Hornstein, Norbert; and Nunes, Jairo. 2010. Control as movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borik, Olga. 2013. Past participle formation and the eventive/adjectival passive in Russian. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 17. 115-32. Online: https://semanticsarchive.net/sub2012/Borik.pdf.Google Scholar
Borik, Olga. 2014. The argument structure of long and short form adjectives and participles in Russian. Lingua 149. 139-65. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Control and complementation. Linguistic Inquiry 13. 343–434. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178286.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2011. Pseudopassives, expletive passives, and locative inversion. Newark: University of Delaware, ms. Online: https://udel.edu/~bruening/Downloads/PseudopassArticle1.pdf.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2012. By phrases in passives and nominals. Syntax 16. 1–41. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9612.2012.00171.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1984. Topics in the syntax and semantics of infinitives and gerunds. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1989. Structured meanings, thematic roles and control. Properties, types and meaning, vol. 2: Semantic issues, ed. by Chierchia, Gennaro, Partee, Barbara, and Turner, Raymond, 131-66. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1990. Anaphora and attitudes de se. Semantics and contextual expression, ed. by Bartsch, Renate, Benthem, Johan van, and van, Peter Boas, Emde, 1–32. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris. 2005. A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8. 81–120. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9612.2005.00076.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose. 2009. The origin and content of expletives: Evidence from ‘selection’. Syntax 12. 285–323. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9612.2009.00127.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1994. The syntax of Romanian: Comparative studies in Romance. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eide, Kristin M., and Åfarli, Tor A.. 1999. The syntactic disguises of the predication operator. Studia Linguistica 53. 155-81. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9582.00043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evers, Arnold. 1975. The transformational cycle of Dutch and German. Utrecht: University of Utrecht dissertation.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert. 1991. Minimale Syntax. (Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 32.) Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit.Google Scholar
Fischer, Silke. 2018. Locality, control, and non-adjoined islands. Glossa: A journal of general linguistics 3:82. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.182.Google Scholar
Gaatone, David. 1993. Les locutions verbales et les deux passifs du français. Langages 109. 37–52. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23906517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaatone, David. 1994. Le passif, l'impersonnel et le passif impersonnel. L'Information Grammaticale 62. 42–44. DOI: 10.3406/igram.1994.3099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geist, Ljudmila. 2010. The argument structure of predicate adjectives in Russian. Russian Linguistics 34. 239-60. DOI: 10.1007/s11185-010-9064-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grano, Thomas. 2015. Control and restructuring. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grewendorf, Günther. 1989. Ergativity in German. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grewendorf, Günther. 1990. Small pro in German. Scrambling and barriers, ed. by Grewendorf, Günther and Sternefeld, Wolfgang, 295–315. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 1987. Expletives pro—Eine Phantomkategorie. Parallela III, ed. by Dressler, Wolfgang, Grassi, Corrado, Rindler-Schjerve, Rosita, and Stegu, Martin, 237-47. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 1990. Null subjects and expletives in Romance and Germanic languages. Issues in Germanic syntax, ed. by Abraham, Werner, Kosmeijer, Wim, and Reuland, Eric, 49–66. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 1993. Deutsche Syntax—Generativ. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 2010. The syntax of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene, and Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 1994. Layers of predication: The non-lexical syntax of clauses. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 2012. Specification, equation, and agreement in copular sentences. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 57. 209-40. DOI: 10.1017/S0008413100004758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 2013. The syntax of predication. The Cambridge handbook of generative syntax, ed. by Dikken, Marcel den, 322-52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511804571.014.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2002. Expletives and agreement in Scandinavian passives. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 4. 85–128. DOI: 10.1023/A:1015882307080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 2009. The new impersonal as a true passive. Advances in comparative Germanic syntax, ed. by Alexiadou, Artemis, Hankamer, Jorge, McFadden, Thomas, Nuger, Justin, and Schäfer, Florian, 281–306. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kastner, Itamar, and Zu, Vera. 2014. The syntax of implicit arguments. New York: New York University, ms. Online: https://amor.cms.hu-berlin.de/~kastneri/media/pubs/kastner-zu14-syntax-of-implicit-arguments.pdf.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2013. Towards a null theory of the passive. Lingua 125. 7–33. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koster, Jan. 1978. Why subject sentences don't exist. Recent transformational studies in European languages, ed. by Keyser, Samuel Jay, 53–64. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. Phrase structure and the lexicon, ed. by Rooryck, Johan and Zaring, Laurie, 109-37. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40. 187–237. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2009.40.2.187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of control: Structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2004. The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22. 811-77. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-004-4265-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2008. Two routes of control: Evidence from case transmission in Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26. 877–924. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-008-9054-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2010. The explicit syntax of implicit arguments. Linguistic Inquiry 41. 357-88. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2013. Control in generative grammar: A research companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2015. A two-tiered theory of control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2017. Adjunct control depends on Voice. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (A Pesky set: Papers for David Pesetsky) 80. 93–102.Google Scholar
Lappin, Shalom, and Shlonsky, Ur. 1993. Impersonal passives. Linguistics 31. 5–24. DOI: 10.1515/ling.1993.31.1.5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2012. Subjects in Acehnese and the nature of the passive. Language 88. 495–525. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2012.0069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2014. Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohndal, Terje. 2014. Sentential subjects in English and Norwegian. Syntaxe et Sémantique 15. 81–113. DOI: 10.3917/ss.015.0081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 25. 609-65. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178880.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line. 2005. Copular clauses: Specification, predication and equation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohr, Sabine. 2005. Clausal architecture and subject positions: Impersonal constructions in the Germanic languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moulton, Keir. 2013. Not moving clauses: Connectivity in clausal arguments. Syntax 16. 250-91. DOI: 10.1111/synt.12007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 1995. On extraposition and successive cyclicity. On extraction and extraposition in German, ed. by Lutz, Uli and Pafel, Jürgen, 213-43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2016. The short life cycle of external arguments in German passive derivations. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig, ms. Online: http://home.uni-leipzig.de/muellerg/mu951.pdf.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2008. Depictive secondary predicates in German and English. Secondary predicates in eastern European languages and beyond, ed. by Schroeder, Christoph, Hentschel, Gerd, and Boeder, Winfried, 255-73. Oldenburg: BIS-Verlag.Google Scholar
Ott, Dennis. 2017. Clausal arguments as syntactic satellites: A reappraisal. Labels and roots, ed. by Blümel, Andreas and Bauke, Leah S., 127-60. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9781501502118-007.Google Scholar
Paslawska, Alla, and Stechow, Arnim von. 2003. Perfect readings in Russian. Perfect explorations, ed. by Alexiadou, Artemis, Rathert, Monika, and Stechow, Arnim von, 307-62. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pearson, Hazel. 2013. The sense of self: Topics in the semantics of de se expressions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University dissertation.Google Scholar
Pearson, Hazel. 2016. The semantics of partial control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34. 691–738. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-015-9313-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitteroff, Marcel, Alexiadou, Artemis, Darby, Jeannique; and Fischer, Silke. 2017. On partial control in German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 20. 139-85. DOI: 10.1007/s10828-017-9088-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitteroff, Marcel, and Sheehan, Michelle. 2018. The case for fake partial control in French and German. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 48, to appear.Google Scholar
Poole, Ethan. 2015. An argument for implicit arguments. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Amherst, ms.Google Scholar
Rapp, Irene. 1996. Zustand? Passiv?—Überlegungen zum sogenannten ‚Zustandspassiv'. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 15. 231-65. DOI: 10.1515/zfsw.1996.15.2.231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapp, Irene. 1997. Partizipien und semantische Struktur: Zu passivischen Konstruktionen mit dem 3. Status. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Reed, Lisa A. 2014. Strengthening the PRO hypothesis. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Reed, Lisa A. 2018. On Visser's effects, control, and weak implicit agents. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 24:19. Online: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol24/iss1/19/.Google Scholar
Richards, Marc. 2007. On object shift, phases, and transitive expletive constructions in Germanic. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 6. 139-59. DOI: 10.1075/livy.6.07ric.Google Scholar
Richards, Marc, and Biberauer, Theresa. 2005. Explaining Expl. The function of function words and functional categories, ed. by Dikken, Marcel den and Tortora, Christina, 115-54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Roeper, Thomas. 1987. Implicit arguments and the head-complement relation. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 267–310. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178538.Google Scholar
Romero, Maribel. 2005. Concealed questions and specificational subjects. Linguistics and Philosophy 28. 687–737. DOI: 10.1007/s10988-005-2654-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan D. 1983. The syntactic form of predication. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan D. 1995. Pleonastics and the interpretation of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 501-57. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178908.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan D. 2004. Predicates and their subjects. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, Susan D. 2006. Secondary predication. The Blackwell companion to syntax, ed. by Everaert, Martin and Riemsdijk, Henk van, 209-33. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ruys, Eddy G. 2010. Expletive selection and CP arguments in Dutch. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 13. 141-78. DOI: 10.1007/s10828-010-9037-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Safir, Ken. 1987. The syntactic projection of lexical thematic structure. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5. 561–601. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4047506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultze-Berndt, Eva, and Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.. 2004. Depictive secondary predicates in crosslinguistic perspective. Linguistic Typology 8. 59–131. DOI: 10.1515/lity.2004.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle. 2012. A new take on partial control: Defective thematic intervention. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 6:1. Online: http://www.ling.cam.ac.uk/COPIL/papers/6-sheehan.pdf.Google Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle. 2014. Partial control in Romance languages: The covert comitative analysis. Romance languages and linguistic theory 2012: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’, Leuven 2012, ed. by Lahousse, Karen and Marzo, Stefania, 181-98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur. 1990. Pro in Hebrew subject inversion. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 263-75. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178671.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1989. Verbal syntax and case in Icelandic. Lund: University of Lund dissertation.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2011. On the new passive. Syntax 14. 148-78. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9612.2010.00150.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stroik, Thomas S. 1996. Extraposition and expletive-movement: A minimalist account. Lingua 99. 237-51. DOI: 10.1016/0024-3841(96)00020-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takahashi, Shoichi. 2010. The hidden side of clausal complements. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28. 343-80. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-010-9091-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thráinsson, Hoskuldur. 1979. On complementation in Icelandic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University dissertation.Google Scholar
van Urk, Coppe. 2013. Visser's generalization: The syntax of control and the passive. Linguistic Inquiry 44. 168-78. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 1995. Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, Fredericus T. 1973. A historical syntax of the English language, vol. 3. Brill: Brill.Google Scholar
White, Aaron Steven, and Grano, Thomas. 2014. An experimental investigation of partial control. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18. 469-86. Online: https://semanticsarchive.net/sub2013/ProceedingsSuB18.pdf.Google Scholar
Williams, Alexander. 2015. Arguments in syntax and semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 203-38. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178153.Google Scholar
Wood, Jim. 2012. Against the movement theory of control: Another argument from Icelandic. Linguistic Inquiry 43. 322-30. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Jim. 2017. Icelandic object extraposition is still a problem for the movement theory of control: A reply to Drummond and Hornstein. Linguistic Inquiry 48. 513-27. DOI: 10.1162/ling_a_00252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 2006. Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry 37. 111-30. DOI: 10.1162/002438906775321175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2006. Licensing Case. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 18. 175–236. DOI: 10.1017/S1470542706000079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2014. Tense and aspect in English infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 45. 403-47. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2015. Restructuring crosslinguistically. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 45. 227-40.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Maling, Joan; and Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1985. Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3. 441-83. DOI: 10.1007/BF00133285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaring, Laurie. 1994. On the relationship between subject pronouns and clausal arguments. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12. 515-69. DOI: 10.1007/BF01118138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar