Abels, Klaus. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. Doctoral dissertation. University of Connecticut.

Alboiu, Gabriela. 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. Dordrecht: Springer, 187–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alexiadou, Artemis, and Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1998. Parametrizing Agr: word order, verb-movement and EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16(3): 491–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Iordachioaia, Gianina, and Marchis, Mihaela. 2008. A stronger argument for backward control. Paper presented at NELS, Cornell University.

Andrews, Avery. 1982. The representation of case in Modern Icelandic. In Bresnan, J. (ed.). The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 424–503.Google Scholar

Andrews, Avery. 1990. Case structures and control in Modern Icelandic. In Maling, Joan and Zaenen, Annie (eds.). Modern Icelandic Syntax. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 187–234.Google Scholar

Aoun, Josef. 1979. On government, case marking, and clitic placement. Unpublished manuscript. MIT.

Badecker, William, and Straub, Kathleen. 2002. The processing role of structural constraints on the interpretation of pronouns and anaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 28: 748–769.Google ScholarPubMed

Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Baker, Mark. 1997. Thematic Roles and Syntactic Structure. In Haegeman, L. (ed.). Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 73–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, Mark, Johnson, Kyle, and Roberts, Ian. 1989. Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 219–252.Google Scholar

Baltin, Mark, and Barrett, Leslie. 2002. The null content of null case. Unpublished manuscript. New York University.

Barrie, Michael. 2007. Control and wh-infinitivals. In Davies, W. D. and Dubinsky, S. (eds.). New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising. Dordrecht: Springer, 263–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Belletti, A. 1988. The case of unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 1–34.Google Scholar

Belletti, A., and Rizzi, L.. 1988. Psych verbs and theta theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 291–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berwick, Robert, and Weinberg, Amy. 1984. The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bobaljik, Jonathan. 1995. In terms of merge: copy and head movement. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 27: 41–64.Google Scholar

Bobaljik, Jonathan, and Brown, Samuel. 1997. Inter-arboreal operations: head-movement and the extension requirement. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 345–356.Google Scholar

Bobaljik, Jonathan, and Landau, Idan. 2009. Icelandic control is not A-movement: the case from case. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boeckx, Cedric. 1999. Conflicting c-command requirements. Studia Lingüística 53: 227–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boeckx, Cedric. 2000. A note on contraction. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 357–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boeckx, Cedric. 2003. Islands and Chains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boeckx, Cedric. 2008. Bare Syntax. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Boeckx, Cedric, and Hornstein, Norbert. 2003. Reply to “Control is not movement.” Linguistic Inquiry 34: 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boeckx, Cedric, and Hornstein, Norbert. 2004. Movement under control. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 431–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boeckx, Cedric, and Hornstein, Norbert. 2006a. Control in Icelandic and theories of control. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 591–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boeckx, Cedric, and Hornstein, Norbert. 2006b. The virtues of control as movement. Syntax 9: 118–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boeckx, Cedric, and Hornstein, Norbert. 2007. On (non-)obligatory control. In Davies, W. D. and Dubinsky, S. (eds.). New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising. Dordrecht: Springer, 251–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boeckx, Cedric, Hornstein, Norbert, and Nunes, Jairo. 2007. Overt copies in reflexive and control structures: a movement analysis. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 15: 1–45. www.ling.umd.edu/publications/volume15Google Scholar

Boeckx, Cedric, Hornstein, Norbert, and Nunes, Jairo. 2008. Copy-reflexive and copy-control constructions: a movement analysis. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 8: 61–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boeckx, Cedric, Hornstein, Norbert, and Nunes, Jairo. 2010. Icelandic control really is A-movement: reply to Bobaljik and Landau. Linguistic Inquiry 41(1): 111–130.CrossRef

Bošković, Željko. 1994. D-structure, theta-criterion, and movement into theta-positions. Linguistic Analysis 24: 247–286.Google Scholar

Bošković, Željko. 1997. The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation: An Economy Approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bošković, Željko. 2002. On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 351–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bošković, Željko. 2007. On the locality and motivation of move and Agree: an even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 589–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bošković, Željko, and Nunes, Jairo. 2007. The copy theory of movement: a view from PF. In Corver, Norbert and Nunes, Jairo (eds.). The Copy Theory of Movement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 13–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bouchard, Dennis. 1984. On the Content of Empty Categories. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Bowers, John. 1973. Grammatical relations. Doctoral dissertation. MIT.

Bowers, John. 2006. On reducing control to movement. Syntax 11: 125–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Control and complementation. In Bresnan, Joan (ed.). The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 282–390.Google Scholar

Britto, Helena. 1997. Deslocados à esquerda, resumptivo-sujeito, ordem SV: a expressão do juizo categórico e tético no português do Brasil. Doctoral dissertation. Universidade Estadual de Campinas.

Castillo, Juan Carlos, Drury, John, and Grohmann, Kleanthes. 1999. Merge over move and the extended projection principle. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 63–103.Google Scholar

Cecchetto, Carlo, and Oniga, Renato. 2004. A challenge to null case theory. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chierchia, Gennaro. 1984. Topics in the syntax and semantics of infinitives and gerunds. Doctoral dissertation. University of Massachussetts.

Chomsky, Carol. 1969. The Acquisition of Syntax in Children from 5 to 10. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1955. The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1964. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalisation. In Jacobs, R. and Rosenbaum, P. (eds.). Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn, 184–221.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Culicover, P. W., Wasow, T., and Akmajian, A. (eds.). Formal Syntax. New York, NY: Academic Press, 71–132.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1980. On binding. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 1–46.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1986a. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1986b. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.). The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–52.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1994. Bare phrase-structure. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. Categories and Transformations. In The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 219–394.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In David Michaels, Roger Martin, and Uriagereka, Juan (eds.). Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 89–155.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.). Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–52.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Belletti, A. (ed.). Structures and Beyond. Oxford University Press, 104–131.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Freidin, R., Otero, C. P., and Zubizarreta, M. L. (eds.). Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 133–166.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam, and Lasnik, Howard. 1993. The theory of principles and parameters. In Jacobs, Joachim, Stechow, Arnim, Sternefeld, Wolfgang, and Vennemann, Theo (eds.). Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 506–569.Google Scholar

Cormack, Annabel, and Smith, Neil. 2004. Backward control in Korean and Japanese. University College of London Working Papers in Linguistics 16: 57–83.Google Scholar

Corver, Norbert, and Nunes, Jairo. 2007. The Copy Theory of Movement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Courtenay, Karen. 1998. Summary: subject-control verb PROMISE in English. http://linguistlist.org/issues/9/9-651.html

Culicover, P., and Jackendoff, R.. 2001. Control is not movement. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 483–512.Google Scholar

Culicover, P., and Jackendoff, R.. 2005. Simpler Syntax. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davies, W. D., and Dubinsky, S.. 2004. The Grammar of Raising and Control: A Course in Syntactic Argumentation. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 1994. The Syntax of Romanian: Comparative Studies in Romance. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67: 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drummond, Alex. 2009. On the surprisingly constrained nature of sideward movement. Unpublished manuscript. University of Maryland.

Duarte, Maria Eugênia. 1995. A perda do princípio “evite pronome” no português brasileiro. Doctoral dissertation. Universidade Estadual de Campinas.

Duarte, Maria Eugênia. 2000. The loss of the “avoid pronoun” principle in Brazilian Portuguese. In Kato, M. and Negrão, E. (eds.). Brazilian Portuguese and the Null Subject Parameter. Madrid and Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana and Vervuert, 17–36.Google Scholar

Duarte, Maria Eugênia. 2004. On the embedding of a syntactic change. Language Variation in Europe, Papers from ICLaVE 2: 145–155.Google Scholar

Epstein, Samuel D., and Seely, T. Daniel. 2006. Derivations in Minimalism. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Etxepare, Ricardo. 1998. The syntax of illocutionary force. Doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland.

Farkas, Donka. 1988. On obligatory control. Linguistics and Philosophy 11: 27–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ferreira, Marcelo. 2000. Argumentos nulos em Português Brasileiro. MA thesis. Universidade Estadual de Campinas.

Ferreira, Marcelo. 2004. Hyperraising and null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 47: Collected Papers on Romance Syntax, 57–85.

Ferreira, Marcelo. 2009. Null subjects and finite control in Brazilian Portuguese. In Nunes, J. (ed.). Minimalist Essays on Brazilian Portuguese Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 17–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Floripi, Simone. 2003. Argumentos nulos dentro de DPs em Português Brasileiro. MA thesis. Universidade Estadual de Campinas.

Floripi, Simone, and Nunes, Jairo. 2009. Movement and resumption in null possessor constructions in Brazilian Portuguese. In Nunes, J. (ed.). Minimalist Essays on Brazilian Portuguese Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fodor, Jerry. 1975. The Language of Thought. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.Google Scholar

Freidin, Robert, and Sprouse, Rex. 1991. Lexical case phenomena. In Freidin, R. (ed.). Principles and Parameters in Comparative Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 392–416.Google Scholar

Fujii, Tomohiro. 2006. Some theoretical issues in Japanese control. Doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland.

Galves, Charlotte. 1998. Tópicos, sujeitos, pronomes e concordância no Português Brasileiro. Cadernos de Estudos Lingüísticos 34: 7–21.Google Scholar

Galves, Charlotte 2001. Ensaios sobre as Gramáticas do Português. Campinas: Editora da UNICAMP.Google Scholar

González, Nora. 1988. Object and Raising in Spanish. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

González, Nora. 1990. Unusual inversion in Chilean Spanish. In Postal, Paul M and Joseph, Brian D. (eds.). Studies in Relational Grammar 3. University of Chicago Press, 87–103.Google Scholar

Grinder, J. 1970. Super equi-NP deletion. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 6: 297–317.Google Scholar

Grodzinsky, Yosef, and Reinhart, Tanya. 1993. The innateness of binding and of coreference. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 69–101.Google Scholar

Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2003. Prolific Peripheries. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Grosu, Alexander, and Horvath, Julia. 1984. The GB theory and raising in Romanian. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 348–353.Google Scholar

Grosu, Alexander, and Horvath, Julia. 1987. On nonfiniteness in extraction constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5: 181–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haddad, Youssef. 2007. Adjunct control in Telugu and Assamese. Doctoral dissertation. University of Florida.Google Scholar

Haddad, Youssef. 2009. Copy control in Telugu. Journal of Linguistics 45: 69–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel (eds.). The View from Building 20: Essays in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 111–176.Google Scholar

Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, events, and licensing. Doctoral dissertation. MIT.

Henderson, Brent. 2006. Multiple agreement and inversion in Bantu. Syntax 9: 275–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Higginbotham, J. 1980. Pronouns and bound variables. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 679–708.Google Scholar

Higginbotham, J. 1992. Reference and control. In Larson, R., Iatridou, S., Lahiri, U., and Higginbotham, J. (eds.). Control and Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 79–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hornstein, Norbert. 1990. As Time Goes By. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hornstein, Norbert. 1995. Logical Form: From GB to Minimalism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Hornstein, Norbert. 2003. On control. In Randall Hendrick (ed.). Minimalist Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell, 6–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hornstein, Norbert. 2007. Pronouns in minimal setting. In Corver, Norbert and Nunes, Jairo (eds.). The Copy Theory of Movement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 351–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hornstein, Norbert. 2009. A Theory of Syntax: Minimal Operations and Universal Grammar. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hornstein, Norbert, Martins, Ana Maria, and Nunes, Jairo. 2008. Perception and causative structures in English and European Portuguese: ϕ-feature agreement and the distribution of bare and prepositional infinitives. Syntax 11(2): 198–222.CrossRef

Hornstein, Norbert, and Kiguchi, Hirohisa. 2003. PRO gate and movement. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 101–114.Google Scholar

Hornstein, Norbert, and Nunes, Jairo. 2002. On asymmetries between parasitic gap and across-the-board constructions. Syntax 5(1): 26–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hornstein, Norbert, and Nunes, Jairo. 2008. Adjunction, labeling, and bare phrase structure. Biolinguistics 2: 57–86.Google Scholar

Hornstein, Norbert, Nunes, Jairo, and Grohmann, Kleanthes. 2005. Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hornstein, Norbert, and Pietroski, Paul. 2009. Obligatory control and local reflexives: copies as vehicles for de se readings. Unpublished manuscript. University of Maryland.

Hornstein, Norbert, and Witkos, Jacek. 2003. Yet another approach to existential constructions. In Delsing, Lars-Olof, Falk, C., Josefsson, G., Sigurðsson, H. (eds.). Grammar in Focus: Festchrift for Anders Platzak. Lund: Lund University, 167–184.Google Scholar

Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral dissertation. MIT.

Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1980. Remarks on to-contraction. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 239–245.Google Scholar

Jaeggli, Osvaldo 1986. Passive. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 587–622.

Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 1996. Clausal architecture and case in Icelandic. Doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts.

Kandybowicz, Jason. 2009. The Grammar of Repetition: Nupe Grammar at the Syntax–Phonology Interface. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Kato, Mary A. 1999. Strong and weak pronominals and the null subject parameter. Probus 11(1): 1–38.CrossRef

Kato, Mary A. 2000. The partial pro-drop nature and the restricted VS order in Brazilian Portuguese. In Kato, M. and Negrão, E. (eds.). Brazilian Portuguese and the Null Subject Parameter. Madrid and Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana and Vervuert, 223–258.Google Scholar

Kato, Mary A., and Nunes, Jairo. 2009. A uniform raising analysis for standard and nonstandard relative clauses in Brazilian Portuguese. In Nunes, J. (ed.). Minimalist Essays on Brazilian Portuguese Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 93–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kayne, Richard. 1984. Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kayne, Richard. 2002. Pronouns and their antecedents. In Epstein, S. D. and Seely, T. D. (eds.). Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program. Oxford: Blackwell, 133–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kiguchi, Hirohisa. 2004. Syntax unchained. Doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland.

Kiss, Tibor. 2005. On the empirical viability of the movement theory of control. Unpublished manuscript. Ruhr-Universität Bochum.

Kitahara, Hisatsugu. 1997. Elementary Operations and Optimal Derivations. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Koopman, Hilda. 1984. The Syntax of Verbs. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Koster, Jan. 1987. Domains and dynasties. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Laka, Itziar. 2006. On the nature of case in Basque: structural or inherent? In Broekhuis, H., Corver, N., Koster, J., Huybregts, R., and Kleinhenz, U. (eds.). Organizing Grammar: Linguistic Studies in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijk. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 374–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Landau, Idan. 1999. Elements of control. Doctoral dissertation. MIT.

Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of Control: Structure and Meaning in Infinitival Constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Landau, Idan. 2003. Movement out of control. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 471–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Landau, Idan. 2004. The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 811–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Landau, Idan. 2006. Severing the distribution of PRO from case. Syntax 9: 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Landau, Idan. 2007. Movement-resistant aspects of control. In Davies, W. D. and Dubinsky, S. (eds.). New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising. Dordrecht: Springer, 293–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lasnik, Howard. 1995. Case and expletives revisited. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 615–633.Google Scholar

Lasnik, Howard, and Saito, Mamoru. 1992. Move A. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Lasnik, Howard, and Uriagereka, Juan. 1988. A Course in GB Syntax: Lectures on Binding and Empty Categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Lebeaux, David. 1985. Locality and anaphoric binding. The Linguistic Review 4: 343–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lee, Felicia. 2003. Anaphoric R-expressions as bound variables. Syntax 6: 84–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lees, Robert B. 1960. The grammar of English nominalizations. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Lidz, Jeff, and Idsardi, William. 1997. Chains and phono-logical form. UPenn Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 109–125.Google Scholar

Lightfoot, David. 1976. Trace theory and twice-moved NPs. Linguistic Inquiry 7: 559–582.Google Scholar

Manzini, Maria Rita, and Roussou, Anna. 2000. A minimalist theory of A-movement and control. Lingua 110: 409–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. In Westphal, Germán F, Benjamin, Ao, and Chae, Hee-Rahk (eds.). Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, 234–253.

Martin, Roger. 1996. A minimalist theory of PRO and control. Doctoral dissertation. University of Connecticut.

Martin, Roger. 2001. Null case and the distribution of PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 141–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Martins, Ana Maria. 2001. On the origin of the Portuguese inflected infinitive: a new perspective on an enduring debate. In Brinton, L. J. (ed.). Historical Linguistics 1999: Selected Papers from the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Martins, Ana Maria, and Nunes, Jairo. 2005. Raising issues in Brazilian and European Portuguese. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 4: 53–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Martins, Ana Maria, and Nunes, Jairo. 2008. Personal and impersonal infinitives in European Portuguese and obligatory control. Unpublished manuscript. Universidade de Lisboa and Universidade de São Paulo.

Martins, Ana Maria, and Nunes, Jairo. 2009. Syntactic change as chain reaction: the emergence of hyper-raising in Brazilian Portuguese. In Crisma, P. and Longobardi, G. (eds.). Historical Syntax and Linguistic Theory. Oxford University Press, 144–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Martins, Ana Maria, and Nunes, Jairo. In press. Apparent hyper-raising in Brazilian Portuguese: agreement with topics across a finite CP. In Panagiotidis, E. P. (ed.). The Complementiser Phase: Subjects and Wh-Dependencies. Oxford University Press.

McGinnis, Martha. 1998. Locality in A-movement. Doctoral dissertation. MIT.

Modesto, Marcello. 2000. On the identification of null arguments. Doctoral dissertation. University of Southern California.

Monahan, Philip J. 2003. Backward object control in Korean. In Garding, G. and Tsujimura, M. (eds.). WCCFL 22 Proceedings. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 356–369.

Mortensen, David. 2003. Two kinds of variable elements in Hmong anaphora. Unpublished manuscript. UC Berkeley.

Negrão, Esmeralda. 1999. O Português Brasileiro: uma língua voltada para o discurso. Doctoral dissertation. Universidade de São Paulo.

Nicol, J., and Swinney, D.. 1989. The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18: 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nissenbaum, Jon. 2000. Investigations of covert phrase movement. Doctoral dissertation. MIT.

Nunes, Jairo. 1995. The copy theory of movement and linearization of chains in the minimalist program. Doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland.

Nunes, Jairo. 1999. Linearization of chains and phonetic realization of chain links. In Epstein, Samuel David and Hornstein, Norbert (eds.). Working Minimalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 217–249.Google Scholar

Nunes, Jairo. 2001. Sideward movement. Linguistic Inquiry 31(2): 303–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Nunes, Jairo. 2007. A-over-A, inherent case, and relativized probing. GLOW Newsletter 58.Google Scholar

Nunes, Jairo. 2008a. Inherent case as a licensing condition for A-movement: the case of hyper-raising constructions in Brazilian Portuguese. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 7: 83–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nunes, Jairo. 2008b. Preposition insertion in the mapping from spell-out to PF. Linguistics in Potsdam 28: Optimality Theory and Minimalism: Interface Theories, 133–156.

Nunes, Jairo. 2008c. Sideward movement: triggers, timing, and output. Paper presented at Ways of Structure Building, University of the Basque Country.

Nunes, Jairo. 2009a. A note on wh-islands and finite control in Brazilian Portuguese. Estudos da Lingua(gem).

Nunes, Jairo. 2009b. Dummy prepositions and the licensing of null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese. In Aboh, E., E. van der Linden, J. Quer, and P. Sleeman (eds.). Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory: Selected Papers from “Going Romance” 2007. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 243–265.Google Scholar

Nunes, Jairo 2010. Relativizing Minimality for A-movement: φ- and θ-relations. Probus 22: 1–25.

Nunes, Jairo. In press. The copy theory. In Boeckx, C. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism. Oxford University Press.

Nunes, Jairo, and Uriagereka, Juan. 2000. Cyclicity and extraction domains. Syntax 3: 20–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Oded, Ilknur. 2006. Control in Turkish. MA thesis. Bogazici University.

O'Neil, J. 1995. Out of control. NELS 25: 361–371.Google Scholar

Osterhout, L., and Mobley, L. A.. 1995. Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language 34: 739–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Phillips, Colin. 1996. Order and structure. Doctoral dissertation. MIT.

Phillips, Colin. 2004. The real-time status of island constraints. Unpublished manuscript. University of Maryland.

Pires, Acrisio. 2001. The syntax of gerunds and infinitives: subjects, case and control. Doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland.

Pires, Acrisio. 2006. The Minimalist Syntax of Defective Domains: Gerunds and Infinitives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Polinsky, Maria, Monahan, Philip, and Kwon, Nayoung. 2007. Object control in Korean: how many constructions? Language Research 43: 1–33.

Polinsky, Maria, and Potsdam, Eric. 2002. Backward control. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 245–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Polinsky, Maria, and Potsdam, Eric. 2006. Expanding the scope of control and raising. Syntax 9: 171–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pontes, Eunice. 1987. O Tópico no Português do Brasil. Campinas: Pontes.Google Scholar

Postal, Paul, and Pullum, Geoffrey. 1978. Traces and the description of English complementizer contraction. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 1–29.Google Scholar

Potsdam, Eric. 2006. Backward object control in Malagasy: evidence against an empty category analysis. In Baumer, Donald, Montero, David, and Scanlon, Michael (eds.). Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 328–336.Google Scholar

Quinn, C. 2004. Field notes on white Hmong reflexives. Unpublished manuscript. Harvard University.Google Scholar

Raposo, Eduardo. 1987. Romance infinitival clauses and case theory. In Neidle, C. and Cedeño, R. A. Nuñez (eds.). Studies in Romance Languages. Dordrecht: Foris, 237–249.Google Scholar

Raposo, Eduardo. 1989. Prepositional infinitival constructions in European Portuguese. In Jaeggli, O. and Safir, K. (eds.). The Null Subject Parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 277–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar

Reuland, Eric. 1983. Governing -ing. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 101–136.Google Scholar

Rezac, Milan. 2004. Elements of cyclic syntax: Agree and merge. Doctoral dissertation. University of Toronto.

Richards, Norvin. 2001. Movement in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 2006. On the form of chains: criterial positions and ECP effects. In Cheng, Lisa and Corver, Norbert (eds.). WH-Movement: Moving On. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 97–133.Google Scholar

Rodrigues, Cilene. 2002. Morphology and null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese. In Lightfoot, D. (ed.). Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change. Oxford University Press, 160–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rodrigues, Cilene. 2004. Impoverished morphology and A-movement out of case domains. Doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland.

Rodrigues, Cilene. 2007. Agreement and flotation in partial and inverse partial control configurations. In Davies, W. D. and Dubinsky, S. (eds.). New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising. Dordrecht: Springer, 213–229.Google Scholar

Rooryck, Johan. 2001. Configurations of Sentential Complementation: Perspectives from Romance Languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Rooryck, Johan. 2007. Control via selection. In Davies, W. D. and Dubinsky, S. (eds.). New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising. Dordrecht: Springer, 281–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rosenbaum, P. S. 1967. The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Rosenbaum, P. S. 1970. A principle governing deletion in English sentential complementation. In Jacobs, R. and Rosenbaum, P. (eds.). Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn, 20–29.Google Scholar

Ross, John R. 1970. On declarative sentences. In Jacobs, R. and Rosenbaum, P. (eds.). Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn, 222–272.Google Scholar

Roussou, Anna. 2001. Control and raising in and out of subjunctive complements. In Rivero, María Luisa and Ralli, Angela (eds.). Comparative Syntax of the Balkan Languages. Oxford University Press, 74–104.Google Scholar

Salmon, N. 1986. Reflexivity. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 27: 401–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

San Martin, Itziar. 2004. On subordination and the distribution of PRO. Doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland.

Shlonsky, Ur. 1997. Clause Structure and Word Order in Hebrew and Arabic: An Essay in Comparative Semitic Syntax. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sichel, Ivy. 2007. Raising in DP revisited. In Davies, W. D. and Dubinsky, S. (eds.). New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising. Dordrecht: Springer, 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1991. Icelandic case marked PRO and the licensing of lexical arguments. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 327–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1996. Icelandic finite verb agreement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57: 1–46.

Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2008. The case of PRO. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 403–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Snarska, Anna. 2009. On certain issues of control in English and Polish: partial control, split control and super-equi. Doctoral dissertation. Adam Mickiewicza University, Poznan.

Stockwell, Robert P., Paul Schachter, and Barbara Hall Partee. 1973. The Major Syntactic Structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Stowell, Tim. 1981. The origins of phrase structure. Doctoral dissertation. MIT.

Stowell, Tim. 1982. The tense of infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 561–570.Google Scholar

Terzi, Arontho. 1997. PRO and null case in finite clauses. The Linguistic Review 14: 335–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1979. On complementation in Icelandic. Doctoral dissertation. Harvard University.

Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2008. The Syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Torrego, Esther. 1996. On quantifier float in control clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 111–126.Google Scholar

Uchibori, Asako. 2000. The syntax of subjunctive complements: evidence from Japanese. Doctoral dissertation. University of Connecticut.

Ura, Hiroyuki. 1994. Varieties of raising and the feature-based bare phrase structure theory. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 23: 297–316.Google Scholar

Uriagereka, Juan. 1998. Rhyme and Reason: An Introduction to Minimalist Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. Multiple Spell-Out. In Epstein, Samuel David and Hornstein, Norbert (eds.). Working Minimalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 251–282.Google Scholar

Uriagereka, Juan. 2006. Complete and partial Infl. In Cedric Boeckx (ed.). Agreement systems. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 267–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ussery, Cherlon. 2008. What it means to agree: the behavior of case and phi features in Icelandic control. In C. B. Chang and H. J. Haynie (eds.). Proceedings of WCCFL 26. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 480–488.Google Scholar

Craenenbroeck, Jeroen, Rooryck, Johan, and Wyngaerd, Guido. 2005. If control raises, it fails to copy, reconstruct, and linearize. Paper presented at the LSA Linguistic Institute Workshop “New Horizons in the Grammar of Raising and Control.” Harvard University, July, 8–10.

Varlokosta, Spyridoula. 1993. Control in Modern Greek. Doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland.

Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 203–238.Google Scholar

Williams, Edwin. 1985. PRO and the subject of NP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 277–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wurmbrand, Susanne. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Wurmbrand, Susi. 2005. Tense in infinitives. Paper presented at the LSA Linguistic Institute Workshop “New Horizons in the Grammar of Raising and Control.” Harvard University, July, 8–10.

Wurmbrand, Susi. 2006. WollP: where syntax and semantics meet. Unpublished manuscript. University of Connecticut.

Yip, Moira, Maling, Joan, and Jackendoff, Ray. 1987. Case in tiers. Language 63: 217–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zaenen, Annie, Maling, Joan, and Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1985. Case and grammatical functions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 441–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zwart, C. J.-W. 2002. Issues relating to a derivational theory of binding. In Epstein, S. D. and Seely, T. D. (eds.). Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program. Oxford: Blackwell, 269–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar