Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-cbk24 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T15:59:08.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

21 - A-dependencies

from Part III - Comparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2026

By
Suzana Fong and
Claire Halpert
Edited by
Sjef Barbiers,
Norbert Corver and
Maria Polinsky
Sjef Barbiers
Affiliation:
Universiteit Leiden
Norbert Corver
Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht
Maria Polinsky
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
Get access

Summary

An A-dependency is usually characterized in terms of a relationship between different syntactic positions that is based on case, agreement, theta-role assignment, or binding. This chapter starts with an examination of the defining properties of A-dependencies, focusing on case and agreement as potential driving forces for the creation of such dependencies, and the debate surrounding these topics. We then explore the cross-linguistic variation in the syntax of A-dependencies, illustrating it with dependencies that cross a clausal boundary. Specifically, we examine different instances of raising and control, as well as the theories formulated to account for such phenomena.

Keywords

A-dependenciesA/A-bar distinctionA-movementcaseagreementfinitenessraisingcontrolrestructuringhyperraising

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax , pp. 679 - 713
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alboiu, G. 2007. Moving forward with Romanian backward control and raising. In Davies, W. D. and Dubinsky, S. (eds.), New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising, 187–211. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alboiu, G., and Hill, V.. 2016. Evidentiality and raising to object as A′-movement: A Romanian case study. Syntax 19(3): 256–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., Iordachioaia, G., and Marchis, M.. 2010. No objections to backward control. In Hornstein, and Polinsky, (eds.), 89–118.Google Scholar
Allotey, D. 2021. Overt pronouns of infinitival predicates of Gã. Western Papers in Linguistics 4(1): 1–47.Google Scholar
Arka, I. W. 2014a. Computational implementation of crossed control structures in Indonesian. In Sudipa, I. and Primahadi-Wijaya, G. (eds.), Cahaya Bahasa: A Festschrift in Honour of Prof. Sutjaja, 21–27. Bali: Swasta Nulus.Google Scholar
Arka, I. W. 2014b. Double and backward control in Indonesian: An LFG analysis. In Butt, M. and Holloway King, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG14 Conference. Stanford, CA: CLSI Publications.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 2015. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, M., Johnson, K., and Roberts, I.. 1989. Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry 20(2): 219–251.Google Scholar
Baker, M. C. 2008. The Syntax of Agreement and Concord [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 115]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. C. 2012. On the relationship of object agreement and accusative case: Evidence from Amharic. Linguistic Inquiry 43(1): 255–274. https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. C., and Vinokurova, N.. 2010. Two modalities of case assignment: Case in Sakha. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28(3): 593–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-010-9105-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bárány, A., and Sheehan, M.. 2024. Challenges for dependent case. In Sevdali, C., Mertyris, D., and Anagnostopoulou, E. (eds.), The Place of Case in Grammar, 93–126. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbosa, P. 2018. Controlled overt pronouns as specificational predicates. In Santos, A. L. and Gonçalves, A. (eds.), Complement Clauses in Portuguese: Syntax and Acquisition [Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 17], 129–186. https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.17.05bar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, M. 2019. Indonesian crossed control: Expanding the typology of restructuring. In Proceedings of the 36th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 61–70.Google Scholar
Bittner, M., and Hale, K.. 1996. The structural determination of case and agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 27(1): 1–68.Google Scholar
Bjorkman, B. M., and Zeijlstra, H.. 2019. Checking up on (φ-)Agree. Linguistic Inquiry 50(3): 527–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D. 2008. Where’s phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In Harbour, D., Adger, D., and Béjar, S. (eds.), Phi-Theory: Phi Features across Interfaces and Modules, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D., and Landau, I.. 2009. Icelandic control is not A-movement: The case from case. Linguistic Inquiry 40(1): 113–132. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.1.113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C., Hornstein, N., and Nunes, J.. 2010. Control as Movement [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 126]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burzio, L. 1986. Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach, vol. 1. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butt, M. 2008. Case in Lexical-Functional Grammar. In Malchukov, A. and Spencer, A. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Case, 59–71. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Caha, P. 2009. The Nanosyntax of Case. PhD thesis, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Caha, P. To appear. Nanosyntax: Some key features. In Alexiadou, A., Kramer, R., Marantz, A., and Oltra-Massuet, I. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Distributed Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carstens, V. 2011. Hyperactivity and hyperagreement in Bantu. Lingua 121(5): 721–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstens, V., and Diercks, M.. 2009. Parameterizing case and activity: Hyper-raising in Bantu. Linguistics Publications (MU).Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., and Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 81–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2008. On phases. In Freidin, R., Otero, C. P., Zubizarreta, M. L., and Keyser, S. J. (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., and Lasnik, H.. 1993. The theory of principles and parameters. In Jacobs, J., von Stechow, A., Sternefeld, W., and Vennemann, T. (eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, 506–569. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colley, J., and Privoznov, D.. 2020. On the topic of subjects: Composite probes in Khanty. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS). Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Collins, C. 2005. A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8(2): 81–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2005.00076.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P. W., and Jackendoff, R.. 2001. Control is not movement. Linguistic Inquiry 32(3): 493–512. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438901750372531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darzi, A. 2008. On the vP analysis of Persian finite control constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 39(1): 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deal, A. R. 2015. Ergativity. In Alexiadou, A. and Kiss, T. (eds.), Syntax – Theory and Analysis: An International Handbook, 654–707. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Deal, A. R. 2017. Covert hyperraising to object. In Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS), 257–270 Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Diercks, M. 2012. Parameterizing case: Evidence from Bantu. Syntax 15(3): 253–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2011.00165.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doliana, A., and Sundaresan, S.. 2022. Proxy control: A new species of control in grammar. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 40: 1–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-020-09501-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, M. 2000. Argumentos nulos em português brasileiro. PhD thesis, Universidade de Campinas.Google Scholar
Ferreira, M. 2009. Null subjects and finite control in Brazilian Portuguese. In Nunes, J. (ed.), Minimalist Essays on Brazilian Portuguese Syntax, 17–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fong, S. 2019. Proper movement through Spec-CP: An argument from hyperraising in Mongolian. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1): 30. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.667.Google Scholar
Fong, S. 2022. Distinguishing between accounts of the A/A′-distinction: The view from Argentinian Spanish clitic doubling. Isogloss: Open Journal of Romance Linguistics 8(2): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/isogloss.132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fong, S. 2024. Pronouncing pro in Wolof. In Huang, Y., Kaldhol, N. H., Lim, J. J., Rose, S., and Struthers-Young, A. (eds.), Proceedings of ACAL 53, 237–261. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Ganenkov, D. 2022. Partial Control with Overt Embedded Subjects in Chirag. Ms., Humboldt University of Berlin. https://lingbuzz.net/lingbuzz/007028.Google Scholar
Georgi, D. 2014. Opaque Interactions of Merge and Agree: On the Nature and Order of Elementary Operations. PhD thesis, University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, J. 2001. Control and thematic agreement. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 46(1–2): 9–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grano, T. 2015. Control and Restructuring [Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 56]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haddad, Y. A. 2009. Copy control in Telugu. Journal of Linguistics 45(1): 69–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haddad, Y. A. 2012. Raising in Standard Arabic: Backward, forward, and none. In Bassiouney, R. and Katz, E. G. (eds.), Arabic Language and Linguistics, 61–78. Washington, DC, Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Halpert, C. 2015. Argument Licensing and Agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpert, C. 2019. Raising, unphased. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37(1): 123–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-018-9407-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpert, C., and Zeller, J.. 2015. Right dislocation and raising-to-object in Zulu. The Linguistic Review 32(3): 475–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harðarson, G. R. 2016. A case for a Weak Case Contiguity hypothesis: A reply to Caha. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34(4): 1329–1343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049–016–9328-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2022. Ergative, absolutive, accusative and nominative as comparative concepts. In Iomdin, L., Milićević, J., and Polguère, A. (eds.), Lifetime Linguistic Inspirations: To Igor Mel’čuk, 201–213. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30(1): 69–96. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999553968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N., and Polinsky, M. (eds.). 2010. Movement Theory of Control [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 154]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ilkhanipour, N. 2014. On the CP analysis of Persian finite control constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 45(2): 323–331. https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keine, S. 2018. Case vs. positions in the locality of A-movement. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 138. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.520.Google Scholar
Koopman, H., and Sportiche, D.. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua 85(2–3): 211–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornfilt, J., and Preminger, O.. 2015. Nominative as no case at all: An argument from raising-to- accusative in Sakha. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 9), 109–120. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kroeger, P., and Frazier, K.. 2020. Crossed-control in Malay/Indonesian as long-distance passivization. In Paul, I. (ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA). University of Western Ontario.Google Scholar
Kurniawan, E. 2013. Sundanese Complementation. PhD thesis, University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Landau, I. 1999. Elements of Control. PhD thesis, MIT. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/9352.Google Scholar
Landau, I. 2003. Movement out of control. Linguistic Inquiry 34(3): 471–498. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438903322247560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 2004. The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22(4): 811–877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-4265-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 2006. Severing the distribution of PRO from case. Syntax 9(2): 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2006.00087.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 2007. Movement-resistant aspects of control. In Davies, W. D. and Dubinsky, S. (eds.), New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 71], 293–325. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 2008. Two routes of control: Evidence from case transmission in Russian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26(4): 877–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 2013. Control in Generative Grammar: A Research Companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 2015. A Two-Tiered Theory of Control [Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 71]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, H. 1999. Chains of arguments. In Epstein, S. D. and Hornstein, N. (eds.), Working Minimalism [Current Studies in Linguistics Series 32], 189–216. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lee, F. 2003. Anaphoric R–expressions as bound variables. Syntax 6(1): 84–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, K. Y. 2009. Finite Control in Korean. PhD thesis, University of Iowa. https://doi.org/10.17077/etd.qgulnymt.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, T. T.-M., and Yip, K.-F.. 2022. Hyperraising, Evidentiality, and Phase Deactivation. Ms., University of Southern California and Yale University. https://lingbuzz.net/lingbuzz/006471/.Google Scholar
Li, D. 2021. Controlling overt subjects in Mandarin. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 6(1): 303–316. https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v6i1.4973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Livitz, I. 2014. Deriving Silence through Dependent Reference: Focus on Pronouns. PhD thesis, New York University.Google Scholar
Lohninger, M., Kovač, I., and Wurmbrand, S.. 2022. From prolepsis to hyperraising. Philosophies 7(2): 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies7020032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahajan, A. K. 1990. The A/A-Bar Distinction and Movement Theory. PhD thesis, MIT. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/13650.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 1991. Case and licensing. In Westphal, G., Ao, B., and Chae, H.-R. (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL 8), 234–253. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Martin, R. 2001. Null case and the distribution of PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 32(1): 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438901554612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, T. 2004. The Position of Morphological *Case in the Derivation: A Study on the Syntax–Morphology Interface. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania. https://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI3125870/.Google Scholar
McFadden, T., and Sundaresan, S.. 2018. Reducing pro and PRO to a single source. The Linguistic Review 35(3): 463–518. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2018-0003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Modesto, M. 2007. Null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese and Finnish: They are not derived by movement. In Davies, W. D. and Dubinsky, S. (eds.), New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 71], 231–248. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Modesto, M. 2011. Finite control: Where movement goes wrong in Brazilian Portuguese. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 10(2). https://doi.org/10.5334/jpl.95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, G. 2017. Structure removal: An argument for feature-driven Merge. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1): 138. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.193.Google Scholar
Natarina, A. 2018. Complementation in Balinese: Typological, Syntactic, and Cognitive Perspectives. Ms., University of Iowa. https://doi.org/10.17077/etd.1h90npxe.Google Scholar
Ndayiragije, J. 2012. On raising out of control. Linguistic Inquiry 43(1): 275–299. https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, A., and Payne, A.. 2020. On matrix-clause intervention in accusative-and-infinitive constructions. Syntax 23(1): 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevins, A. 2004. Derivations without the Activity Condition. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49: 287–310.Google Scholar
Nunes, J. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement [Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 43]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, J. 2008. Inherent case as a licensing condition for A-movement: The case of hyperraising constructions in Brazilian Portuguese. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 7(2). https://doi.org/10.5334/jpl.129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrove, J. 2024. Obligatorily overt PRO in San Martín Peras Mixtec. Linguistic Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, I., Travis, L., Vander Klok, J., and Wurmbrand, S.. 2021. Crossed control as Voice restructuring. In Hernández, A. and Plyley, C. (eds.), Proceedings of the 2021 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. Canadian Linguistic Association.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. 2021. Exfoliation: Towards a Derivational Theory of Clause Size. Ms., MIT. https://lingbuzz.net/lingbuzz/004440/.Google Scholar
Pietraszko, A. 2021. Backward control without A-movement or φ-agreement. In Proceedings of NELS 51 . lingbuzz/005959.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M., and Potsdam, E.. 2002a. Backward control. Linguistic Inquiry 33(2): 245–282. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438902317406713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, M., and Potsdam, E.. 2002b. Backward control: Evidence from Malagasy. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 44: 257–272.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M., and Potsdam, E.. 2003. Control in Malagasy. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 19: 173–187.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M., and Potsdam, E.. 2006. Expanding the scope of control and raising. Syntax 9(2): 171–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2006.00090.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, M., and Potsdam, E.. 2008. The syntax and semantics of wanting in Indonesian. Lingua 118(10): 1617–1639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, E. 2022. Improper case. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 41: 347–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-022-09541-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postal, P. 1974. On Raising: One Rule of English Grammar and Its Theoretical Implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Potsdam, E. 2009. Malagasy backward object control. Language 85(4): 754–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potsdam, E., and Haddad, Y.. A. 2013. Linearizing the control relation: A typology. In Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. (eds.), Challenges to Linearization [Studies in Generative Grammar 114], 235. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Potsdam, E., and Polinsky, M.. 2012. Backward raising. Syntax 15(1): 75–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2011.00158.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preminger, O. 2014. Agreement and Its Failures [Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 68]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, C. A. N. 2004. Impoverished Morphology and A-Movement out of Case Domains. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park. https://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/1882.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. S. 1965. The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. PhD thesis, MIT. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/16391.Google Scholar
Safir, K. 2019. The A/Ā distinction as an epiphenomenon. Linguistic Inquiry 50(2): 285–336. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salzmann, M. 2017. Prolepsis. In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. C (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd ed., 3203–3245. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sato, Y. 2010. The Crossed-Control Construction and the Syntactic Role of Passive Morphology in Standard Indonesian. Ms. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001177.Google Scholar
Sato, Y. 2011. On the movement theory of obligatory control: Voices from standard Indonesian. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 56(2): 267–275. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100003170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, T. 2021. Formalizing Two Types of Mixed A/Ā Movement. Ms., University of California, Berkeley. lingbuzz/005874.Google Scholar
Sheehan, M., and Cyrino, S.. 2022. Restrictions on long passives in English and Brazilian Portuguese: A phase-based account. Linguistic Inquiry, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, M., and Van der Wal, J.. 2018. Nominal licensing in caseless languages. Journal of Linguistics 54(3): 527–589. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226718000178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starke, M. 2017. Resolving (DAT = ACC) ≠ GEN. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1): 104. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.408.Google Scholar
Sulemana, A.-R. 2021. Non-finite Complementation: A Case Study of Bùlì. PhD thesis, MIT. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/139142.Google Scholar
Sulemana, A.-R. 2023. Reduced Complements. Ms., University of Ghana.Google Scholar
Sundaresan, S. 2010. A phase-based account of the PRO/anaphor distinction. Proceedings of ConSOLE XVIII 1: 19.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. 2009. Overt nominative subjects in infinitival complements cross-linguistically. In I. and Rojas, V. (eds.), NYU WPL in Syntax, Spring 2009.Google Scholar
Takahashi, S., and Hulsey, S.. 2009. Wholesale late merger: Beyond the A/Ā distinction. Linguistic Inquiry 40(3): 387–426. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.3.387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, H. 2002. Raising to object out of CP. Linguistic Inquiry 33(4): 637–652. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438902762731790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terzi, A. 1997. PRO and null case in finite clauses. The Linguistic Review 14(4): 335–360. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1997.14.4.335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Urk, C. 2010. Aspects of control. Master’s thesis, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Van Urk, C. 2015. A Uniform Syntax for Phrasal Movement: A Case Study of Dinka Bor. PhD thesis, MIT. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/101595.Google Scholar
Wood, J. 2012. Against the movement theory of control: Another argument from Icelandic. Linguistic Inquiry 43(2): 322–330. https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, J. 2017. Icelandic object extraposition is still a problem for the Movement Theory of Control: A reply to Drummond and Hornstein. Linguistic Inquiry 48(3): 513–527. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. 1998. Infinitives. PhD thesis, MIT. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/9592.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. 2014. Tense and aspect in English infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 45(3): 403–447. https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoon, J. H. 2004. Non-nominative (major) subjects and case stacking in Korean. Typological Studies in Language 61: 265–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoon, J. H. 2007. Raising of major arguments in Korean and Japanese. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25(3): 615–653. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-007-9020-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwart, J.-W., and Lindenbergh, C.. 2021. Rethinking Alignment Typology. BoD–Books on Demand.Google Scholar
Zyman, E. 2018. On the Driving Force for Syntactic Movement. PhD thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5qp401x1.Google Scholar
Zyman, E. 2023. Raising out of finite clauses (hyperraising). Annual Review of Linguistics 9. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-022421-070658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.2 AAA

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The HTML of this chapter complies with version 2.2 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), offering more comprehensive accessibility measures for a broad range of users and attains the highest (AAA) level of WCAG compliance, optimising the user experience by meeting the most extensive accessibility guidelines.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.

Visual Accessibility

Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×