Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-7nlkj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T17:12:09.939Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2009

Norbert Hornstein
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
A Theory of Syntax
Minimal Operations and Universal Grammar
, pp. 181 - 189
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

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.)

References

Abels, K. 2003. “Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding,” PhD thesis, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Aoun, J. and Sportiche, D.. 1983. “On the formal theory of government,” The Linguistic Review 2: 211–236.Google Scholar
Avelar, J. 2004. “Dinâmicas Morofssintáticas com Ter, Ser e Estar em Português Brasileiro,” MA thesis, Universidade Estadual de Campinas.
Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Belletti, A. 1988. “The case of unaccusatives,” Linguistic Inquiry 19: 1–34.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. 1980. “Computational analogues of constraints on grammars: A model of syntactic acquisition,” in 18th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
Berwick, R. and Weinberg, A.. 1984. The grammatical basis of linguistic performance: Language use and acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bhatt, R. 2005. “Long distance agreement in Hindi-Urdu,” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23: 757–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D. 1995a. “Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inflection,” PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge.
Bobaljik, J. D. 1995. “In terms of Merge: Copy and head movement,” MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 27: 41–64.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D. and Brown, S.. 1997. “Interarboreal operations: Head movement and the extension requirement,” Linguistic Inquiry 28: 345–356.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D. and Jonas, D.. 1996. “Subject positions and the roles of TP,” Linguistic Inquiry 27: 195–236.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D. and Wurmbrand, S.. 2005. “The domain of agreement,” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23: 803–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C. 2003a. Islands and chains: Resumption as stranding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C. 2003b. “Intricacies of Icelandic agreement,” ms., University of Maryland, College Park.
Boeckx, C. 2004. “Long-distance agreement in Hindi: Some theoretical implications,” Studia Linguistica 58: 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C. 2006. Linguistic Minimalism: Origins, concepts, methods, and aims. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. 2008. Bare syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. Forthcoming. “The nature of merge: Consequences for language, mind and biology,” in Piatelli-Palmarini, M., Uriagereka, J. and Salaburu, P. (eds.), Of minds and language: The Basque Country encounter with Noam Chomsky. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boeckx, C. and Hornstein, N.. 2004. “Movement under control,” Linguistic Inquiry 35: 431–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C. and Hornstein, N.. 2006. Raising and control. Syntax 9: 188–130.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. and Hornstein, N.. 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, C., Hornstein, N. and Nunes, J.. 2007. “Overt copies in reflexive and control structures: A movement analysis,” in Conroy, A., Jing, C., Nakao, C. and Takahashi, E. (eds.), University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics Vol. 15, 1–46.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C., N. Hornstein and Nunes, J.. In Progress. The movement theory of control.
Boeckx, C. and Jeong, Y.. 2004. “The fine structure of intervention in syntax,” in Kwon, C. and Lee, W. (eds.), Issues in current linguistic theory: A festschrift for Hong Bae Lee. Seoul: Kyungchin, 83–116.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. and Stjepanović, S.. 2001. “Head-ing toward PF,” Linguistic Inquiry 32: 345–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 1999. “On multiple feature checking: Multiple wh-fronting and multiple head movement,” in Epstein, S. D. and Hornstein, N. (eds.), Working Minimalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 159–187.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2007. “Agree, phases and intervention effects,” Linguistic Analysis 33: 54–96.Google Scholar
Bowers, J. 2005. “On reducing control to movement,” ms., Cornell University, Ithaca.
Cagri, I. 2005. “Minimality and Turkish relative clauses,” PhD thesis, University of Maryland, College Park.
Castillo, J. C., Drury, J. and Grohmann, K. K.. 1999. “Merge over Move and the Extended Projection Principle,” in Aoshima, S., Drury, J. and Neuvonen, T. (eds.), University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics Vol. 8, 63–103.Google Scholar
Chametzky, R. A. 1996. A theory of phrase markers and the extended base. Baffalo, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Chametzky, R. A. 2000. Phrase structure: From GB to Minimalism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chandra, P. 2007. “(Dis)AGREE: Movement and agreement reconsidered,” PhD thesis, University of Maryland, College Park.
Chomsky, N. 1955. “The logical structure of linguistic theory,” ms., Harvard University and MIT. [Revised 1956 manuscript published in part as The logical structure of linguistic theory by New York, NY: Plenum, 1975; Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1985.]Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1959. “Review of B. F. Skinner Verbal Behavior,” Language 35: 26–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1964. Current issues in linguistic theory. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1976. “Conditions on rules of grammar,” Linguistic Analysis 2: 303–351.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1977. “On wh-movement,” in Culicover, P. W., Wasow, T. and Akmajian, A. (eds.), Formal syntax. New York: Academic Press, 71–132.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1983. “Some conceptual shifts in the study of language,” in Cauman, L. S., Levi, I., Parson, C. D. and Schwartz, R. (eds.), How many questions? Essays in honor of Sidney Morgenbesser. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986a. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986b. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. New York, NY: Praeger.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. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–52.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1995a. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1995b. “Bare Phrase Structure,” in Webelhuth, G. (ed.), Government and Binding theory and the Minimalist Program. Oxford: Blackwell, 383–440.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000. “Minimalist inquiries: The framework,” in Martin, R., Michaels, D. and Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by step. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 91–155.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. “Derivation by phase,” in Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–52.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2004. “Beyond explanatory adequacy,” in Belletti, A. (ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 104–131.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2005. “Three factors in language design,” Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2005b. “On Phases,” ms., MIT, Cambridge. [To appear in Freidin, R., Otero, C. P. and Zubizarreta, M. L. (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.]Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. and Lasnik, H.. 1993. “The theory of principles and parameters,” in Jacobs, J., Stechow, A., Sternefeld, W. and Vennemann, T. (eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 506–569.Google Scholar
Citko, B. 2003. “ATB wh-questions and the nature of Merge,” in Kadowaki, M. and Kawahara, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the thirty-third annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Collins, C. 1997. Local economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Collins, C. 2002. “Eliminating labels,” in Epstein, S. D. and Seely, T. D. (eds.), Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program. Oxford: Blackwell, 42–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cosmides, L. and Tooby, J.. 1992. “Cognitive adaptations for social exchange,” in Barkow, J., Cosmides, L. and Tooby, J. (eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. 1996. Climbing Mount Improbable. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marcken, C. 1996. “Unsupervised language acquisition,” PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge.
Besten, H. 1983. “On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules,” in Abraham, W. (ed.), On the formal syntax of the Westgermania. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 47–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dikken, M. 1995. “Binding, expletives and levels,” Linguistic Inquiry 26: 347–354.Google Scholar
Diesing, M. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Donati, C. 2003. “Merge copy,” in Schwabe, K. and Winkler, S. (eds.), The interfaces: Deriving and interpreting omitted structures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 155–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dresher, B. E. 1999. “Charting the learning path: Cues to parameter setting,” Linguistic Inquiry 30: 27–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, D. and Poeppel, D.. 2005a. “Mapping syntax using imaging: Prospects and problems for the study of neurolinguistic computation,” in Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd edn.). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Embick, D. and Poeppel, D.. 2005b. “Defining the relation between linguistics and neuroscience,” in Cutler, A. (ed.), Twentiy-first century psycholinguistics: Four cornerstones. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 103–118. [To be reprinted in Sciullo, A. Di (ed.), Biolinguistics. MIT Press, 2008.]Google Scholar
Enç, M. 1991. “The semantics of specificity,” Linguistic Inquiry 22: 1–25.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. D. 1999. “Un-principled syntax: The derivation of syntactic relations,” in Epstein, S. D. and Hornstein, N. (eds.), Working Minimalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 317–345.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. D., Groat, E. M., Kawashima, R. and Kitahara, H.. 1998. A derivational approach to syntactic relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. D. and Seely, T. D. (eds.). 2002. Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRef
Epstein, S. D. and Seely, T. D.. 2006. Derivations in Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, J. 2006. “Deletion through movement,” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 24: 399–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A. 1998. In critical condition: Polemical essays on cognitive science and the philosophy of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. 2000. The mind doesn't work that way: The scope and limits of computational psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. 1998. “Unambiguous triggers,” Linguistic Inquiry 29: 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, D. and Pesetsky, D.. 2005. “Cyclic Linearization of syntactic structure,” Theoretical Linguistics 31: 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujii, T. 2006. “Some theoretical issues in Japanese control,” PhD thesis, University of Maryland, College Park.
Fukui, N. 1997. “Attract and the A-over-A principle,” UCI Working Papers in Linguistics #3: 51–67.Google Scholar
Groat, E. M. 1999. “Raising the case of expletives,” in Epstein, S. D. and Hornstein, N. (eds.), Working Minimalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 27–44.Google Scholar
Groat, E. M. and O'Neil, W.. 1996. “Spell-out at the LF interface,” in Abraham, W., Epstein, S. D., Thráinsson, H. and Zwart, C. J.-W. (eds.), Minimal ideas. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 113–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grohmann, K. K. 2003. Prolific domains: On the anti-locality of movement dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. 1984. “Testing the Reality of focus domain,” Language and Speech 26: 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J.. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, H. 2004. “Merge, conflation, and head movement: The first sister principle revisited,” in Moulton, K. and Wolf, M. (ed.), Proceedings of the thirty-fourth annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N. and Fitch, W. T.. 2002. “The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?,” Science 298: 1569–1579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heim, I. 1982. “The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases,” PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Heycock, C. 1994. Layers of predication. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Hicks, G. 2006. “The derivation of anaphoric dependencies,” PhD thesis, University of York, York.
Higginbotham, J. 1986. “Linguistic theory and Davidson's program in semantics,” in Lepore, E. (ed.), Truth and interpretation: Perspectives on the philosophy of Donald Davidson. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 29–48.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. 1995. Logical form: from GB to Minimalism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. 1999. “Movement and control,” Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. 2001. Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. 2003. “On control,” in Hendrick, R. (ed.), Minimalist Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell, 6–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. 2006. “Pronouns in a Minimalist setting,” in Kazanina, N., Minai, U., Monahan, P. J. and Taylor, H. L. (eds.), University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics. College Park, MD: 47–80. Revised version printed in The Copy Theory of Movement. Corver, N. and Nunes, J. eds. 2007. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. 2007. “A very short note on existential constructions,” Linguistic Inquiry 38: 410–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. and Kiguchi, H.. 2003. “PRO Gate and movement,” in Arunachalam, S., Kaiser, E. and Williams, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Penn Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. and Nunes, J.. 2002. “On asymmetries between parasitic gap and across-the-board constructions,” Syntax 5: 26–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N., Lasnik, H. and Uriagereka, J.. (2003/out 2007). “The dynamics of islands: speculations on the locality of movement,” Linguistic Analysis 33: 149–175.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. and Nunes, J.. 2008. “Some thoughts on adjunction,” Biolinguistics.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. and Uriagereka, J.. 2002. “Reprojections,” in Epstein, S. D. and Seely, T. D. (eds.), Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program. Oxford: Blackwell, 106–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. and Witkos, J.. 2003. “Yet another approach to existential constructions,” in Delsing, L.-O., Falk, C., Joseffson, G. and Sigurdsson, H. (eds.), Grammar in Focus Festschrift for Christer Platzack. Lund: Department of Scandinavian Languages, University of Lund, 167–184.Google Scholar
Hunter, T. 2008. “The meaning of movement and adjunction,” MS, University of Maryland, College Park.
Irurtzun, A. 2007. The grammar of focus at the interfaces. PhD Dissertation. The University of the Basque Country.
Jackendoff, R. 1994. Patterns in the mind. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. 1991. “Object positions,” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9: 577–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K. 2001. “What VP ellipsis can do, and what it can't, but not why,” in Baltin, M. R. and Collins, C. (eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 439–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kato, Mary and Jairo, Nunes. 1998. “Two sources for relative clause formation in Brazilian Portuguese,” Paper presented at the Eighth Colloquium on Generative Grammar. Universidade de Lisboa.
Kawashima, R. and Kitahara, H.. 1995. “Strict cyclicity, linear ordering, and derivational c-command,” in Camacho, J., Choueiri, L. and Watanabe, M. (eds.), The Proceedings of the Fourteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 255–269.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 1972. “Subject inversion in French interrogatives,” in Casagrande, J. and Saciuk, B. (eds.), Generative studies in Romance languages. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 70–126.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 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
Kayne, R. S. 2005. “On parameters and on principles of pronunciation,” in Riemsijk, H. and Broekhuis, H. (eds.), Organizating grammar: Studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, 289–299.Google Scholar
Kitahara, H. 1997. Elementary operations and optimal derivations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kobele, G. 2006. “Generating copies,” PhD thesis, UCLA, Los Angeles.
Koopman, H. 1984. The syntax of verbs: From verb movement rules in the Kru languages to Universal Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kuno, M. 2004. “Reconstruction obeys minimality: A representational theory of symmetrical grammar,” Linguistic Research: Working Papers in English Linguistics 20: 39–101.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. 1993. Lectures on minimalist syntax. Storrs: UConn Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. 1995. “Case and expletives revisited: On Greed and other human failings,” Linguistic Inquiry 26: 615–633.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. 1999. Minimalist analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. 2001. “When can you save a structure by destroying it?,” In Kim, M. and Strauss, U. (eds.), Proceedings of the thirty-first annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications, 301–320.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. and Kupin, J.. 1977. “A restrictive theory of transformational grammar,” Theoretical Linguistics 4: 173–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, R. L. and Vasishth, S.. 2005. “An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval,” Cognitive Science 29: 375–419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lidz, J. and Idsardi, W. J.. 1998. “Chains and phono-logical form,” in Dimitriadis, A., Lee, H., Moisset, C. and Williams, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium. Philadelphia: Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, 109–125.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. 1990. “Old heads and new heads,” in Mascaro, J. and Nespor, M. (eds.), Grammar in progress: GLOW studies for Henk van Riemsdijk. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
May, R. 1985. Logical Form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. 2000. “Quantifier float and wh-movement in an Irish English,” Linguistic Inquiry 31: 57–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKeown, R. 2007. “A movement account of Scandinavian reflexives,” Generals Paper, University of Maryland, College Park.
Merchant, J. 2001. The syntax of silence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Müller, G. 1996. “A constraint on remnant movement,” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 14: 355–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Motomura, M. 2001. “Zibun as a residue of overt A-movement,” Generals Paper, University of Maryland, College Park.
Murasugi, K. and Saito, M.. 1995. “Adjunction and cyclicity,” in Aranovich, R., Byrne, W., Preuss, S. and Senturia, M. (eds.), The Proceedings of the Thirteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 302–317.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. 1982. “Parameterizing the notion ‘head’,” Journal of Linguistic Research 2: 57–75.Google Scholar
Nakao, C. 2007. “Copy free movement, swiping and the ECP,” Generals Paper, University of Maryland, College Park.
Newmeyer, F. J. 2004. “Typological evidence and Universal Grammar,” Studies in Language 28: 527–548.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. 2005. Possible and probable languages: A generative perspective on linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, J. 1995. “The copy theory of movement and linearization of chains in the Minimalist Program,” PhD thesis, University of Maryland, College Park.
Nunes, J. 2001. “Sideward movement,” Linguistic Inquiry 31: 303–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, J. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nunes, J. and Ž. Bošković, . 2007. “The Copy Theory of Movement: A view from PF,” in Corver, N. and Nunes, J. (eds.), The Copy Theory of Movement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 13–74.Google Scholar
Nunes, J. and Uriagereka, J.. 2000. “Cyclicity and extraction domains,” Syntax 3: 20–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega-Santos, I. 2006. “On postverbal subjects, PF and the copy theory: The Spanish case,” in Sagarra, N. and Toribio, A. J. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 9th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 56–66.Google Scholar
Panagiotidis, P. 2003. “One, empty nouns and theta assignment,” Linguistic Inquiry 34: 281–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, T. 1990. Events in the semantics of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. 1982. “Paths and categories,” PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge.
Pesetsky, D. and Torrego, E.. 2001. “T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences,” in Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 355–426.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. 1996. “Order and structure,” PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge.
Pietroski, P. 2005. Events and semantic architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pietroski, P. 2007. “Induction and comparison,” in Conroy, A., Jing, C., Nakao, C. and Takahashi, E. (eds.), University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics. College Park, MD: 154–186.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. 1997. How the mind works. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Pires, A. 2006. The minimalist syntax of defective domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poeppel, D. and Monahan, P. J.. In press. “Speech perception: Cognitive foundations and cortical implementation,” Current Directions in Psychological Science.
Polinsky, M. and Potsdam, E.. 2002. “Backward control,” Linguistic Inquiry 33: 245–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, M. and Potsdam, E.. 2006. “Expanding the scope of control and raising,” Syntax 9: 171–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. “Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP,” Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. 1983. “Coreference and bound anaphora: A restatement of the anaphora questions,” Linguistics and Philosophy 6: 47–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, N. 2001. Movement in language: Interactions and architectures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2005. “Phase theory and the priviledge of the root,” in Riemsijk, H. and Broekhuis, H. (eds.), Organizating grammar: Studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, 529–537.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 1994. “Two types of head movement in Romance,” in Hornstein, N. and Lightfoot, D. (ed.), Verb movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 207–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues, C. 2004. “Impoverished morphology and movement out of case domains,” PhD thesis, University of Maryland, College Park.
Rosenbaum, P. S. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. 1967. “Constraints on variables in syntax,” PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge.
Saito, M. 1989. “Scrambling as semantically vacuous A′-movement,” in Baltin, M. R. and Kroch, A. S. (eds.), Alternative concepts of phrase structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 182–200.Google Scholar
Saito, M. and Fukui, N.. 1998. “Order in phrase structure and movement,” Linguistic Inquiry 29: 439–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, B. 2008. “A string theory of syllables,” MS, Harvard University.
Schein, B. 1993. Plurals and events. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Seely, T. D. 2006. “Merge, derivational c-command, and subcategorization in a label-free syntax,” in Boeckx, C. (ed.), Minimalist essays. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 182–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, E. 1984. The relationship between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Soltan, U. 2007. “On formal feature licensing in minimalism,” PhD thesis, University of Maryland, College Park.
Sportiche, D. 1988. “A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure,” Linguistic Inquiry 19: 425–449.Google Scholar
Stabler, E. 2007. “Language structure, depth and processing.” Paper presented Mayfest 2007. University of Maryland, College Park.
Starke, M. 2001. “Move dissolves into merge: A theory of locality,” PhD thesis, University of Geneva, Geneva.Google Scholar
Stjepanović, S. 2003. “A word-order paradox resolved by copy deletion at PF,” Linguistic Variation Yearbook 3: 139–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stowell, T. A. 1981. “Origins of phrase structure,” PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge.
Szabolcsi, A. and Zwarts, F.. 1993. “Weak islands and an algebraic semantics of scope taking,” Natural Language Semantics 1: 235–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szczegielniak, A. 2005. “VP ellipsis and topicalization,” in Bateman, L. and Ussery, C. (eds.), Proceedings of the thirty-fifth annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications, 603–614.Google Scholar
Takahashi, D. 1994. “Minimality of movement,” PhD thesis, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Tallerman, M. 2006. “Challenging the syllabic model of ‘syntax-as-it-is',” Lingua 116: 689–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taraldsen, K. T. 1996. “Reflexives, pronouns and subject/verb agreement in Icelandic and Faroese,” in Black, J. R. and Motopanyane, V. (eds.), Microparametric syntax and dialect variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, J. 1995. “Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance,” Linguistic Inquiry 26: 79–123.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J. 1998. Rhyme and reason: An introduction to minimalist syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J. 1999. “Multiple Spell-Out,” in Epstein, S. D. and Hornstein, N. (eds.), Working Minimalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 251–282.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J. 2002. “Pure adjuncts,” ms., University of Maryland, College Park.
Vassilieva, M. and Larson, R.. 2001. “The semantics of the plural pronoun construction,” in Hastings, R., Jackson, B. and Zvolenszky, Z. (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) XI. Ithaca: CLC Publications, Department of Linguistics, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 1991. “Verb movement and the licensing of NP positions in the Germanic languages,” PhD thesis, University of Geneva, Geneva.
Wagner, M. 2005. “Prosody and recursion,” PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge.
Wilder, C. 1999. “Right node raising and the LCA,” in Bird, S., Carnie, A., Haugen, J. D. and Norquest, P. (eds.), Proceedings of the Eighteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 586–598.Google Scholar
Yoshida, M. 2006. “Sometimes smaller is better: sluicing, gapping and semantic identity,” in Davis, C., Deal, A. R. and Zabbal, Y. (eds.), Proceedings of the thirty-sixth annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications, 681–694.Google 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

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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.

  • References
  • Norbert Hornstein, University of Maryland, College Park
  • Book: A Theory of Syntax
  • Online publication: 01 July 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511575129.009
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.

  • References
  • Norbert Hornstein, University of Maryland, College Park
  • Book: A Theory of Syntax
  • Online publication: 01 July 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511575129.009
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.

  • References
  • Norbert Hornstein, University of Maryland, College Park
  • Book: A Theory of Syntax
  • Online publication: 01 July 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511575129.009
Available formats
×