Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T21:58:13.533Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phil Branigan, Provocative syntax (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 61). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011. Pp. x + 176.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2014

Martin Salzmann
Martin Salzmann*
Affiliation:
University of Leipzig
*
Author's address: Department of Linguistics, University of Leipzig, Beethovenstrasse 15, D-04107 Leipzig, Germanymartin.salzmann@uni-leipzig.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reviews
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , July 2014 , pp. 500 - 507
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

REFERENCES

Abels, Klaus 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Abels, Klaus. 2012. Phases: An essay on cyclicity in syntax. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans. 2008. Derivations and evaluations: Object shift in the Germanic languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Belletti, Adriana (ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 3, 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2000. Multiple Agree and the defective intervention constraint in Japanese. In Matushansky, Ora, Costa, Albert, Martín-González, Javier, Nathan, Lance & Szczegielniak, Adam (eds.), 1st Humit Student Conference in Language Research (HUMIT 2000) (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 40), 67–80. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2010. On deriving CED effects from the PIC. Linguistic Inquiry 41, 35–82.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 355–426. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, Michael T. 2011. Provocative syntax (review). Language 87, 887–890.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi & Shlonsky, Ur. 2007. Strategies of subject extraction. In Sauerland, Uli & Gärtner, Hans-Martin (eds.), Interfaces + recursion = language?, 115–160. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar