Skip to main content
padlock icon - secure page this page is secure

What Partial Control Might Not Tell Us about Agreement: A Reply to Landau

Buy Article:

$52.00 + tax (Refund Policy)

Landau (2016b) draws on data from person mismatches in partial control to argue that agreement is (at least sometimes) a PF (Phonological Form) phenomenon. The argument depends in part on the premise that there is a reading of sentences such as They wanted to prepare themselves and then meet for debate that corresponds to a structure in which the VP meet for debate has a controlled PRO subject that is semantically first‐person but morphologically third‐person. I argue that according to Landau's own assumptions, PRO in such sentences is not semantically first‐person at any level of representation: Landau's premise relies on a problematic conflation between PRO and the output obtained by applying the group operator to PRO in Landau's approach to partial control. Consequently, Landau's argument for the PF status of agreement does not go through.
No References
No Citations
No Supplementary Data
No Article Media
No Metrics

Document Type: Research Article

Publication date: December 1, 2017

  • Access Key
  • Free content
  • Partial Free content
  • New content
  • Open access content
  • Partial Open access content
  • Subscribed content
  • Partial Subscribed content
  • Free trial content
Cookie Policy
Cookie Policy
Ingenta Connect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more