controlled PRO subject. These infinitives could optionally agree with their
subject, anti-agree with it (3SG agreement but non-3SG subject), or show
no agreement. I argue that infinitives without agreement contain no agreement
features, while agreeing and anti-agreeing ones do so. I propose that
Old Hungarian infintives can be optionally strong or weak phases, and the
difference in strength correlates with the two agreement types. When the
infinitive is a weak phase, PRO can get referene in the canonical position
(the specifier of the infinitival TP). Here PRO is probed by T’s agreement
features and it values these features, yielding regular agreement. Antiagreement
occurs when the infinitive is a strong phase. In this case the
phase boundary between the PRO and its controller prevents PRO from
getting reference in spec, TP. In order to get reference, PRO either has to
move to the edge of the infinitival phase, or it has to get referene in the postsyntactic
component. In either case, PRO gets reference when it cannot be
probed by T’s agreement features any more. To prevent these features
from reaching the interfaces without a value, a default feature-filling
mechanism rescues the derivation as a last resort. The analysis supports
binding or agreement based theories of control, as opposed to the movement
analysis
