This chapter is based on earlier work on Obligatory Control and Reflexivization in terms of movement. The point here is not to rehash the arguments for movement approaches to control and reflexive binding but to illustrate how movement approaches to construal are consequences of the EMH incorporating the FPG. The EMH/FPG implies that the non-local relation between an antecedent and Obligatory Control PRO (OCPRO) and a reflexive must be mediated by I-merge. In other words, descriptively speaking, such construal relations must “live on” A-chains. As this is effectively what movement theories of OC and Reflexivization have argued, and as the EMH/FPG implies movement theories of both, insofar as such movement theories are successful, to that extent they support the encompassing EMH/FPG theory. I review some arguments showing that movement plausibly underlies such dependencies. However, the discussion is not exhaustive; it is mainly illustrative. The reader is referred to the considerable literature on both topics for the full-scale defense of these movement approaches.

This chapter looks at the mechanics of Agreement, and the role that Agreement plays in Case-marking and A-Movement. It starts (Module 3.1) by characterising Agreement, Case-marking and A-Movement as involving a probe-goal relation, and outlines how agreement and case features are valued in the course of a derivation. Module 3.2 goes on to look at how agreement works in expletive it clauses, and contrasts this with multiple agreement in expletive there clause: it also examines conditions on the use of expletives. Module 3.3 then turns to explore the potential role of abstract agreement in Passive, Raising, Exceptional Case-marking, and Control infinitives. Next Module 3.4 investigates non-standard structures involving agreement across a finite clause boundary (e.g. He seems is very active), and at Copy Raising structures (e.g. He looks like he’s winning). The chapter concludes with a Summary (Module 3.5), Bibliography (Module 3.6), and Workbook (Module 3.7), with some Workbook exercise examples designed for self-study, and others for assignments/seminar discussion.

This chapter reviews a number of issues concerning Scandinavian object shift and object scrambling of the type found in the Germanic OV-languages. It differs from earlier reviews in that it adopts as its null hypothesis that the two phenomena should be given a unified treatment. An important reason for this is that object shift and scrambling are subject to similar effect-on-output conditions. This raises the question why object shift and scrambling behave differently with respect to, e.g., Holmberg’s Generalization. It will be argued that this is due to the fact that object movement is subject to various language-specific, violable constraints.