Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T14:48:05.881Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
This chapter is part of a book that is no longer available to purchase from Cambridge Core

References

Andrew Radford
Andrew Radford
Affiliation:
University of Essex
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
Analysing English Sentences
A Minimalist Approach
 , pp. 486 - 513
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

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

Aarts, B. (1992) Small Clauses in English: The Nonverbal Types, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abeillé, A. and Borsley, R. D. (2006) ‘Comparative correlatives and parameters’, ms. University of Essex.
Abels, K. (2003) Successive-Cyclicity, Anti-Locality and Adposition Stranding, PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Abney, S. P. (1987) The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Adger, D. (2003) Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Adger, D. and Ramchand, G. (2005) ‘Merge and Move: Wh-dependencies revisited’, Linguistic Inquiry 36: 161–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Afarli, T. A. (1989) ‘Passive in Norwegian and in English’, Linguistic Inquiry 20: 101–8.Google Scholar
Agbayani, B. (2000) ‘Wh-subjects in English and the Vacuous Movement Hypothesis’, Linguistic Inquiry 31: 703–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agbayani, B. (2006) ‘Pied-piping, feature movement and wh-subjects’, in Cheng and Corver 2006, pp. 71–93.
Agüero-Bautista, C. (2007) ‘Diagnosing cyclicity in Sluicing’, Linguistic Inquiry 38: 413–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aissen, J. (1996) ‘Pied-piping, abstract agreement and functional projections in Tzotzil’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31: 703–13.Google Scholar
Akiyama, M. (2004) ‘Multiple nominative constructions in Japanese and Economy’, Linguistic Inquiry 35: 671–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akmajian, A. and Heny, F. (1975) An Introduction to the Principles of Transformational Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. (1997) Adverb Placement: A Case Study in Antisymmetric Syntax, Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A. and Anagnostopoulou, E. (1998) ‘Parameterizing AGR: word order, V-movement and EPP checking’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 491–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A. and Anagnostopoulou, E. (2001) ‘The subject-in-situ generalization and the role of case in driving computations’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 193–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Law, P., Meinunger, A. and Wilder, C. (2000) The Syntax of Relative Clauses, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A. and Wilder, C. (eds.) (1998) Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexopoulou, T. and Kolliakou, D. (2002) ‘On linkhood, topicalisation and clitic left dislocation’, Journal of Linguistics 38: 193–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alhorais, N. (2007) ‘The categorial status of the small clause: a minimalist approach’, ms. University of Newcastle.
Almeida, D. A. de A. and Yoshida, M. (2007) ‘A problem for the preposition stranding generalization’, Linguistic Inquiry 38: 349–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alrenga, P. (2005) ‘A sentential subject asymmetry in English and its implications for complement selection’, Syntax 8: 175–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, E. (2003) The Syntax of Ditransitives, Mouton de Gruyter, The Hague.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R and Lightfoot, D. W (2002) The Language Organ: Linguistics as Cognitive Physiology, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antony, L. M. and Hornstein, N. (2003) Chomsky and his Critics, Blackwell, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aoun, J., Benmamoun, E. and Sportiche, D. (1994) ‘Agreement and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic’, Linguistic Inquiry 25: 195–220.Google Scholar
Authier, J.-M. (1989) ‘Arbitrary null objects and unselective binding’, in Jaeggli, O. and Safir, K. (eds.) The Null Subject Parameter, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 45–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Authier, J.-M. (1991) ‘V-governed expletives, case theory and the projection principle’, Linguistic Inquiry 22: 721–40.Google Scholar
Authier, J.-M. and Reed, L. (2005) ‘The diverse nature of non-interrogative Wh’, Linguistic Inquiry 36: 635–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, E. (1977) ‘Review of Paul M. Postal On Raising’, Language 53: 621–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. (1988) Incorporation, University of Chicago Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Baker, M. (1997) ‘Thematic roles and syntactic structures’, in Haegeman, L. (ed.) Elements of Grammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 73–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M., Johnson, K., and Roberts, I. (1989) ‘Passive arguments raised’, Linguistic Inquiry 20: 219–51.Google Scholar
Baltin, M. (2002) ‘Movement to the higher V is remnant movement’, Linguistic Inquiry 33: 653–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.) (2001) The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, Blackwell, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baltin, M. and Postal, P. M. (1996) ‘More on the Inadequacy of Reanalysis Hypotheses’, Linguistic Inquiry 27: 127–45.Google Scholar
Barbosa, P. (1995) Null Subjects, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Barbosa, P. (2000) ‘Clitics: a window into the Null Subject Property’, in Costa, J. (ed.) Portuguese Syntax: Comparative Studies, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 31–93.Google Scholar
Barbosa, P. (2007) ‘Two kinds of subject pro’, ms. Universidade do Minho.
Barbosa, P., Duarte, M. E. L. and Kato, M. A. (2005) ‘Null subjects in European and Brasilian Portuguese’, Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 4: 11–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barss, A. (2001) ‘Syntactic reconstruction effects’ in Baltin and Collins 2001, pp. 670–96.CrossRef
Barss, A. and Lasnik, H. (1986) ‘A note on anaphora and double objects’, Linguistic Inquiry 17: 347–54.Google Scholar
Basilico, D. (2003) ‘The topic of small clauses’, Linguistic Inquiry 34: 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, S. and Johnson, K. (2004) ‘Double objects again’, Linguistic Inquiry 35: 97–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, M. (2006) ‘There began to be a learnability puzzle’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 441–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bejar, S. and Massam, D. (1999) ‘Multiple case checking’, Syntax 2: 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belletti, A. (1990) Generalized Verb Movement: Aspects of Verb Syntax, Rosenberg and Sellier, Turin.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. and Rizzi, L. (1988) ‘Psych-verbs and θ-theory’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 291–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benmamoun, E. (2006) ‘Licensing configurations: the puzzle of head negative polarity items’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 141–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, J. B. (1993) Topics in the Syntax of Nominal Structures across Romance, PhD dissertation, City University of New York.Google Scholar
Bernstein, J. B. (2001) ‘The DP hypothesis: identifying clausal properties in the nominal domain’, in Baltin and Collins 2001, pp. 536–61.CrossRef
Bhatt, R. and Pancheva, R. (2004) ‘Late merger of degree clauses’, Linguistic Inquiry 35: 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bissell-Doggett, T. (2004) All Things being Unequal: Locality in Movement, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1935) Language, George Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. (1995) Morphosyntax: The Syntax of Verbal Inflection, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. (2000) ‘The rich agreement hypothesis in review’, draft manuscript, McGill University (www.msgill.ca/Linguistics/faculty/bobaljik/).
Bobaljik, J. (2002) ‘A-chains at the PF-interface: copies and “covert” movement’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 197–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2000) ‘A note on Contraction’, Linguistic Inquiry 31: 357–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2001) ‘Scope reconstruction and A-movement’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 503–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2003a) Islands and Chains: Resumption as Stranding, Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2003b) ‘(In)direct binding’, Syntax 6: 213–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2005) ‘A gap in the ECM paradigm’, Linguistic Inquiry 36: 437–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2007) Understanding Minimalist Syntax, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. and Hornstein, N. (2003) ‘Reply to control is not movement’, Linguistic Inquiry 34: 269–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C. and Hornstein, N. (2004) ‘Movement under control’, Linguistic Inquiry 35: 431–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C. and Hornstein, N. (2006a) ‘The virtues of control as movement’, Syntax 9: 118–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C. and Hornstein, N. (2006b) ‘Control in Icelandic and theories of control’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 591–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C. and Stjepanović, S. (2001) ‘Head-ing towards PF’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 345–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, H. (1993) ‘The projection of arguments’, in Benedicto, E. and Runner, J. (eds.) Functional Projections UMass Occasional Papers 17, GLSA publications, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
Borroff, M. L. (2006) ‘Degree phrase inversion in the scope of negation’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 514–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borsley, R. D. (1992) ‘More on the difference between English restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses’, Journal of Linguistics 28: 139–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borsley, R. D. (1997) ‘Relative clauses and the theory of phrase structure’, Linguistic Inquiry 28: 629–47.Google Scholar
Borsley, R. D. (2007) ‘On so-called transitive expletives in Belfast English’, unpublished paper, University of Essex.
Borsley, R. and Jaworska, E. (1998) ‘A note on prepositions and case-marking in Polish’, Linguistic Inquiry 19: 685–91.Google Scholar
Borsley, R., Rivero, M. L., and Stephens, J. (1996) ‘Long head movement in Breton’, in Borsley, R. and Roberts, I. (eds.) The Syntax of the Celtic Languages: A Comparative Perspective, Cambridge University Press, pp. 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Z. (1997) ‘On certain violations of the superiority condition, AgrO and economy of derivation’, Journal of Linguistics 33: 227–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Z. (2001) On the Nature of the Syntax–Phonology Interface: Cliticization and Related Phenomena, Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Bošković, Z. (2002a) ‘On multiple wh-fronting’, Linguistic Inquiry 33: 351–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Z. (2002b) ‘A-Movement and the EPP’, Syntax 5: 167–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Z. (2004) ‘Topicalization, focalization, lexical insertion and scrambling’, Linguistic Inquiry 35: 613–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Z. (2005) ‘On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP’, Studia Linguistica 59: 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Z. and Lasnik, H. (2003) ‘On the distribution of null complementisers’, Linguistic Inquiry 34: 527–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1982) ‘Evaluating competing linguistic models with language acquisition data: implications of developmental errors with causative verbs’, Quaderni di Semantica 3: 5–66.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1988) ‘The “no negative evidence” problem: How do children avoid an overly general grammar?’, in Hawkins, J. (ed.) Explaining Language Universals, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 73–101.Google Scholar
Bowers, J. (1973) Grammatical Relations, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Bowers, J. (1993) ‘The syntax of predication’, Linguistic Inquiry 24: 591–656.Google Scholar
Bowers, J. (2001) ‘Predication’, in Baltin and Collins 2001, pp. 299–333.CrossRef
Bowers, J. (2002) ‘Transitivity’, Linguistic Inquiry 33: 183–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1971) ‘Three suggestions regarding grammatical analyses of children's language’, in Ferguson, C. A. and Slobin, D. I. (eds.) Studies of Child Language Development, Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 421–9.Google Scholar
Branigan, P. (1992) Subjects and Complementisers, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Branigan, P. (2005) ‘The phase theoretic basis for subject-aux inversion’, unpublished paper, Memorial University (www.ucs.mun.ca/~branigan/papers)
Branigan, P. and MacKenzie, M. (2002) ‘Altruism, Ā-movement and object agreement in Innu-aimûn’, Linguistic Inquiry 33: 385–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1970) ‘On complementizers: toward a syntactic theory of complement types’, Foundations of Language 6: 297–321.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1972) Theory of Complementation in English Syntax, PhD dissertation, MIT (published as Bresnan 1979).Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1976) ‘Nonarguments for raising’, Linguistic Inquiry 7: 265–99.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1979) Theory of Complementation in English Syntax, Garland, New York (published version of Bresnan 1972).Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1994) ‘Locative inversion and the architecture of Universal Grammar’, Language 70: 72–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, M. (1995) A Radically Minimalist Theory, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H. (2006) ‘Extraction from subjects: some remarks on Chomsky's “On Phases”’, in Broekhuis, H., Corver, N. and Huybreghts, R. (eds.) Organising Grammar, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, K. (1991) ‘Double modals in Hawick Scots’, in Trudgill, P. and Chambers, J. K. (eds.) Dialects of English, Longman, London, pp. 74–103.Google Scholar
Brown, R., Cazden, C. and Bellugi, U. (1968) ‘The child's grammar from I to III’, in J. P. Hill (ed.) Minnesota Symposium on Child Developmentvol. II, pp. 28–73.
Brown, R. and Hanlon, C. (1970) ‘Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech’, in Hayes, J. R. (ed.) Cognition and the Development of Language, Wiley, New York, pp. 11–53.Google Scholar
Bruening, B. (2001) Syntax at the Edge: Cross-clausal Phenomena and the Syntax of Passamaquoddy, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Bruening, B. (2004) ‘Two types of wh-scope-marking in Passamaquoddy’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 229–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruening, B. (2006) ‘Differences between the wh-scope-marking and wh-copy constructions in Passamaquoddy’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruening, B. (2007) ‘Wh-in-situ does not correlate with wh-indefinites or question particles’, Linguistic Inquiry 38: 139–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Büring, D. (2005) Binding Theory, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, S. and Grimshaw, J. (1992) ‘Coordination and VP-internal subjects’, Linguistic Inquiry 23: 305–13.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. (1986) Italian Syntax, Reidel, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caponigro, I. and Schütze, C. T. (2003) ‘Parameterizing passive participle movement’, Linguistic Inquiry 34: 293–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. and Guasti, M. T. (eds.) (1995) Syntax and Semantics vol. XXVIII: Small Clauses, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. and Starke, M. (1999) ‘The typology of structural deficiency: a case study of the three classes of pronouns’, in Riemsdijk, H. (ed.) Clitics in the Languages of Europe, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 145–233.Google Scholar
Carrier, J. and Randall, J. H. (1992) ‘The argument structure and syntactic structure of resultatives’, Linguistic Inquiry 23: 173–234.Google Scholar
Carlson, K., Dickey, M. W. and Kennedy, C. (2005) ‘Structural economy in the processing and representation of gapping sentences’, Syntax 8: 208–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnie, A. (1995) Nonverbal Predication and Head Movement, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Carstens, V. (2000) ‘Concord in Minimalist Theory’, Linguistic Inquiry 31: 319–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstens, V. (2001) ‘Multiple agreement and case deletion: against φ-(in)completeness’, Syntax 4: 147–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstens, V. (2003) ‘Rethinking complementiser agreement: agree with a case-checked goal’, Linguistic Inquiry 34: 393–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cecchetto, C. and Oniga, R. (2004) ‘A challenge to null case theory’, Linguistic Inquiry 35: 141–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, L. (1997) On the Typology of Wh-Questions, Garland, New York.Google Scholar
Cheng, L. and Corver, N. (eds.) (2006) Wh-Movement: Moving On, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Cheng, L. and Rooryck, J. (2000) ‘Licensing Wh-in-situ’, Syntax 3: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiba, S. (1987) Present Subjunctives in Present-Day English, Shinozaki Shorin, Tokyo.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. (2006) ‘Broaden your views: implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of language’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 535–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1955) The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory, mimeo, MIT (subsequently published as Chomsky 1975).Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic Structures, Mouton, The Hague.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1968) Interview with S. Hampshire in The Listener, May 1968.
Chomsky, N. (1970) ‘Remarks on nominalization’, in Jacobs, R. A. and Rosenbaum, P. S. (eds.) Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Ginn, Waltham, MA, pp. 184–221.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1972) Language and Mind (enlarged edition), Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1973) ‘Conditions on transformations’, in Anderson, S. R. and Kiparsky, P. (eds.) A Festschrift for Morris Halle, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 232–86.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1975) The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory, Plenum Press, New York (published version of Chomsky 1955).Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1977) ‘On Wh-movement’, in Culicover et al. 1977, pp. 71–132.
Chomsky, N. (1980) ‘On binding’, Linguistic Inquiry 11: 1–46.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1982) Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986a) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use, Praeger, New York.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986b) Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1989) ‘Some notes on economy of derivation and representation’, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10: 43–74 (reprinted as chapter 2 of Chomsky 1995).Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1993) ‘A minimalist program for linguistic theory’, in Hale and Keyser 1993, pp. 1–52 (reprinted as chapter 3 of Chomsky 1995).
Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1998) Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework, MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 15 (also published in Martin, R., Michaels, D. and Uriagereka, J. (eds.) Step by Step: Essays on Minimalism in Honor of Howard Lasnik, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA., pp. 89–155).Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1999) Derivation by Phase, MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 18 (also published in Kenstowicz, M. (ed.) (2001) Ken Hale: A Life in Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1–52).Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2001) Beyond Explanatory Adequacy, unpublished manuscript, MIT. (A published version appeared in Belletti, A. (ed.) (2004) Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. III, Oxford University Press, pp. 104–31).Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2002) On Nature and Language, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2005a) ‘Three factors in language design’, Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2005b) ‘On phases’, unpublished paper, MIT (to appear in Freidin, R., Otero, C. P. and Zubizaretta, M.-L. (eds.) Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2006) ‘Approaching UG from below’, unpublished paper, MIT.
Chomsky, N. and Lasnik, H. (1977) ‘Filters and control’, Linguistic Inquiry 8: 425–504.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. and Lasnik, H. (1993) ‘The theory of principles and parameters’, in Jacobs, J., Stechow, A., Sternefeld, W. and Venneman, T. (eds.) Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 506–69 (reprinted in Chomsky 1995, pp. 13–127).Google Scholar
Chung, S. (1994) ‘Wh-agreement and “Referentiality” in Chamorro’, Linguistic Inquiry 25: 1–45.Google Scholar
Chung, S. (1998) The Design of Agreement: Evidence from Chamorro, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chung, S. (2004) ‘Restructuring and verb-initial order in Chamorro’, Syntax 7: 199–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. (1994) ‘Evidence for partial N-movement in the Romance DP’, in Cinque, G., Koster, J., Pollock, J.-Y., Rizzi, L. and Zanuttini, R. (eds.) Paths towards Universal Grammar: Studies in Honor of Richard Kayne, Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC, pp. 85–110.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1999) Adverbs and Functional Heads, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (2002) Functional Structure in DP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. I, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (2004) ‘“Restructuring” and functional structure’, in Belletti, A. (ed.) The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. III Structures and Beyond, Oxford University Press, pp. 132–91.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (2005) ‘Deriving Greenberg's universal 20 and its exceptions’, Linguistic Inquiry 20: 315–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. and Kayne, R. S. (eds.) (2005) Handbook of Comparative Syntax, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Citko, B. (2005) ‘On the nature of Merge: External Merge, Internal Merge and Parallel Merge’, Linguistic Inquiry 36: 475–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citko, B. (2006) ‘The interaction between across-the-board wh-movement and left branch extraction’, Syntax 9: 225–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H. (2008) ‘Chomskyan Syntactic theory and language disorder’, in Ball, M. J., Perkins, M., Mueller, N. and Howard, S. (eds.) The Handbook of Clinical Linguistics, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 165–83.Google Scholar
Clifton, C., Fanselow, G. and Frazier, L. (2006) ‘Amnestying superiority violations: processing multiple questions’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 51–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cole, P. (1982) Imbabura Quechua, North-Holland, The Hague.Google Scholar
Cole, P. and Hermon, G. (1998) ‘The typology of wh-movement: Wh-questions in Malay’, Syntax 1: 221–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, P. and Hermon, G. (2000) ‘Partial wh-movement: evidence from Malay’, in Lutz, Müller and van Stechow 2000, pp. 101–30.CrossRef
Collins, C. (1993) Topics in Ewe Syntax, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Collins, C. (1997) Local Economy, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Collins, C. (2005a) ‘A smuggling approach to the passive in English’, Syntax 8: 81–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, C. (2005b) ‘A smuggling approach to raising in English’, Linguistic Inquiry 36: 289–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, C. and Branigan, P. (1997) ‘Quotative Inversion’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, C. and Thráinsson, H. (1993) ‘Object shift in double object constructions and the theory of Case’, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19: 131–74.Google Scholar
Contreras, H. (1986) ‘Spanish bare NPs and the ECP’, in Bordelois, I., Contreras, H. and Zagona, K. (eds.) Generative Studies in Spanish Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 25–49.Google Scholar
Contreras, J. (1987) ‘Small clauses in Spanish and English’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5: 225–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, L. (2002) ‘Gapping: in defense of deletion’, Chicago Linguistics Society 37: 133–48.Google Scholar
Cormack, A. and Smith, N. (1999) ‘Where is a sign merged?’, Glot International 4, 6: 21.Google Scholar
Cormack, A. and Smith, N. (2000a) ‘Head Movement and negation in English’, Transactions of the Philological Society 98: 49–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cormack, A. and Smith, N. (2000b) ‘Fronting: the syntax and pragmatics of “focus” and “topic”’, UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 20: 387–417.Google Scholar
Corver, N. (1990) The Syntax of Left Branch Extractions, PhD dissertation, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Crain, S. and Pietroski, P. (2002) ‘Why language acquisition is a snap’, The Linguistic Review 19: 163–83.Google Scholar
Cuervo, M. C. (1999) ‘Quirky but not eccentric: dative subjects in Spanish’, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 34: 213–27.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. (1991) ‘Topicalization, inversion and complementiser in English’, in Delfitto, D., Everaert, M., Evers, A. and Stuurman, F. (eds.) OTS Working Papers: Going Romance and Beyond, University of Utrecht, pp. 1–45.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. and Jackendoff, R. (2001) ‘Control is not movement’, Linguistic Inquiry 30: 483–512.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. and Jackendoff, R. (2005) Simpler Syntax, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P. W. and Jackendoff, R. (2006) ‘Turn over control to the semantics’, Syntax 9: 131–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P. and Levine, R. D. (2001) ‘Stylistic inversion in English: a reconsideration’, Natural Language and Linguisitc Theory 19: 283–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P. W. and Nowak, A. (2003) Dynamical Grammar: Minimalism, Acquisition and Change, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W., Wasow, T. and Akmajian, A. (eds.) (1977) Formal Syntax, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Cummins, S. and Roberge, Y. (2004) ‘Null objects in French and English’, in Auger, J., Clements, C. and Vance, B. (eds.) Contemporary Approaches to Romance Linguistics, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 121–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, S. and Roberge, Y. (2005) ‘A modular account of null objects in French’, Syntax 8: 44–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtiss, S. (1977) Genie: A Psycholinguistic Study of a Modern Day “Wild Child”, Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Davies, W. D. and Dubinsky, S. (2004) The Grammar of Raising and Control: A Course in Syntactic Argumentation, Blackwell, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayal, V. (2002) ‘Single-pair versus multiple-pair answers: Wh-in-situ and scope’, Linguistic Inquiry 33: 512–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Déchaine, R.-M. and Wiltschko, M. (2002) ‘Decomposing pronouns’, Linguistic Inquiry 33: 409–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
del Gobbo, F. (2003) Appositives at the Interface, PhD dissertation, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
Dikken, M. (2001) ‘Pluringulars, pronouns and quirky agreement’, The Linguistic Review 18: 19–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dikken, M. and Giannakidou, A. (2002) ‘From hell to polarity: “aggressively non-D-linked” wh-phrases as polarity items’, Linguistic Inquiry 33: 31–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denham, K. (2000) ‘Optional wh-movement in Babine-Witsuwit'en’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 199–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Déprez, V. (2000) ‘Parallel (a)symmetries and the internal structure of negative expressions’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 253–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vries, M. (2002) The Syntax of Relativization, LOT, Utrecht.Google Scholar
Vries, M. (2006) ‘The syntax of appositive relativization: on specifying co-ordination, false free relatives and promotion’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 229–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diesing, M. (1992) Indefinites, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Diesing, M. and Jelinek, E. (1995) ‘Distributing arguments’, Natural Language Semantics 3: 123–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donati, C. (2006) ‘On wh-head movement’, in Cheng and Corver 2006, pp. 21–46.
Drubig, H. N. (2003) ‘Toward a typology of focus and focus constructions’, Linguistics 41: 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dukes, M. (2000) ‘Agreement in Chamorro’, Journal of Linguistics 36: 575–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
du Plessis, H. (1977) ‘Wh-movement in Afrikaans’, Linguistic Inquiry 8: 211–22.Google Scholar
Embick, D. (2004) ‘On the structure of resultative participles in English’, Linguistic Inquiry 35: 355–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, D. and Noyer, R. (2001) ‘Movement operations after syntax’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 555–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emonds, J. E. (1976) A Transformational Approach to English Syntax, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. E. (1993) ‘Projecting indirect objects’, The Linguistic Review 10: 211–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emonds, J. E. (1994) ‘Two principles of economy’, in Cinque, G., Koster, J., Pollock, J.-Y., Rizzi, L. and Zanuttini, R. (eds.) Paths towards Universal Grammar: Studies in Honor of Richard Kayne, Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC, pp. 155–72.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. D., Pires, A. and Seely, T. D. (2005) ‘EPP in T: more controversial subjects’, Syntax 8: 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernst, T. (1991) ‘On the scope principle’, Linguistic Inquiry 22: 750–6.Google Scholar
Escribano, J. L. G. (2004) ‘NPs as just NPs’, unpublished paper, University of Oviedo.Google Scholar
Everett, D. (2005) ‘Biology and language: a consideration of alternatives’, Journal of Linguistics 41: 157–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everett, D. (2006) ‘Biology and language: response to Anderson & Lightfoot’, Journal of Linguistics 42: 385–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabb, N. (1990) ‘The difference between English restrictive and non-restrictive clauses’, Journal of Linguistics 26: 57–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, G. (2002) ‘Against remnant VP-movement’, in Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., Barbiers, S. and Gaertner, H.-M. (eds.) Dimensions of Movement: From Features to Remnants, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 91–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, G. and Ćavar, D. (2002) ‘Distributed deletion’, in Alexiadou, A. (ed.) Theoretical Approaches to Universals, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 65–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, P. (1990) ‘Null objects in Brazilian Portuguese’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 325–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fasold, R. (1980) ‘The relation between black and white speech in the south’, ms., School of Languages and Linguistics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1975) ‘Polarity and the scale principle’, Chicago Linguistics Society 11: 188–99.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1978) ‘Implication reversal in a natural language’, in Guenthner, F. and Schmidt, S. J. (eds.) Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 289–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felser, C. (1999a) Verbal Complement Clauses: A Minimalist Study of Direct Perception Constructions, Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felser, C. (1999b) ‘Perception and control: a Minimalist analysis of English direct perception complements’, Journal of Linguistics 34: 351–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felser, C. (2004) ‘Wh-copying, phases and successive cyclicity’, Lingua 114: 543–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felser, C. and Rupp, L. (2001) ‘Expletives as arguments: Germanic existential sentences revisited’, Linguistische Berichte 187: 289–324.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1968) ‘The case for case’, in Bach, E. and Harms, R. T. (eds.) Universals in Linguistic Theory, Holt Rinehart & Winston, New York, pp. 1–88.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1972) ‘Subjects, speakers and roles’, in Davidson, D. and Harman, G. (eds.) Semantics of Natural Language, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Fitch, W. T., Hauser, M. D. and Chomsky, N. (2005) ‘The evolution of the language faculty: clarification and implications’, Cognition 97: 179–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzmaurice, S. (2000) ‘Remarks on the de-grammaticalization of infinitival to in present-day American English’, in Fischer, O., Rosenberg, A. and Stein, D. (eds.) Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English, Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 171–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flagg, E. (2002) Interface Issues in the English Imperative, PhD dissertation, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. (2001) ‘Setting syntactic parameters’, in Baltin and Collins 2001, pp. 730–67.CrossRef
Fodor, J. D. and Crowther, C. (2002) ‘Understanding stimulus poverty arguments’, The Linguistic Review 19: 105–45.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. and Sakas, W. G. (2005) ‘The subset principle in syntax: costs of compliance’, Journal of Linguistics 41: 513–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folli, R. and Harley, H. (2007) ‘Causation, obligation and Argument Structure: on the nature of little v’, Linguistic Inquiry 38: 197–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, D. (2000) Economy and Semantic Interpretation, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Fox, D. and Lasnik, H. (2003) ‘Successive-cyclic movement and island repair: the difference between sluicing and VP ellipsis’, Linguistic Inquiry 34: 143–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, D. and Nissenbaum, J. (2004) ‘Condition A and scope reconstruction’, Linguistic Inquiry 35: 475–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, R. and Vijay-Shanker, K. (2001) ‘Primitive c-command’, Syntax 4: 164–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franks, S. (1999) ‘Optimality theory and clitics at PF’, Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 7: 101–16.Google Scholar
Franks, S. and Lavine, J. E. (2006) ‘Case and word order in Lithuanian’, Journal of Linguistics 42: 239–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franks, S. and Progovac, L. (1994) ‘On the placement of Serbo-Croatian clitics’, Indiana Linguistic Studies 7: 69–78.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. and Clifton, C. (2005) ‘The syntax–discourse divide: processing ellipsis’, Syntax 8: 121–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freidin, R. (2004) ‘Syntactic Structures redux’, Syntax 7: 101–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freidin, R. and Vergnaud, J. R. (2001) ‘Exquisite connections: some remarks on the evolution of linguistic theory’, Lingua 111: 639–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, L. (1980) Analogical Generalization in Natural Language Syntax, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Georgopoulos, C. (1985) ‘Variable in Palauan syntax’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 59–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgopoulos, C. (1991) Syntactic Variables: Resumptive Pronouns and A'-binding in Palauan, Kluwer, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giannikidou, A. (1997) The Landscape of Polarity Items, PhD dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Giannikidou, A. (1998) Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)veridical Dependency, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giannikidou, A. (1999) ‘Affective dependencies’, Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 367–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giegerich, H. J. (2005) ‘Associative adjectives in English and the lexicon–syntax interface’, Journal of Linguistics 41: 571–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giorgi, A. (2007) ‘On the nature of long-distance anaphors’, Linguistic Inquiry 38: 321–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giusti, G. (1991) ‘The categorial status of quantifier nominals’, Linguistische Berichte 136: 438–52.Google Scholar
Giusti, G. (1997) ‘The categorial status of determiners’, in Haegeman, L. (ed.) The New Comparative Syntax, Cambridge University Press, pp. 94–113.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (2002) Biolinguistics: The Santa Barbara Lectures, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodall, G. (1997) ‘Theta-alignment and the by-phrase’, Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society 33: 129–39.Google Scholar
Goodall, G. (1999) ‘Accusative case in passives’, Linguistics 37: 1–12.Google Scholar
Green, L. (1998) ‘Semantic and syntactic patterns in African American English’, ms. University of Massachusetts.
Green, M. (2007) Focus in Hausa, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975) ‘Logic and conversation’, in Cole, P. and Morgan, J. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, Academic Press, New York, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (1993) ‘Minimal projection, heads, and optimality’, draft manuscript, Rutgers University.
Groat, E. (1995) ‘English expletives: a minimalist approach’, Linguistic Inquiry 26: 354–65.Google Scholar
Groat, E. and O'Neil, J. (1996) ‘Spell-out at the LF interface’, in Abraham, W., Epstein, S. D., Thráinsson, H. and Zwart, C. J.-W. (eds.) Minimal Ideas, Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 113–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groefsema, M. (1995) ‘Understood arguments: a semantic/pragmatic approach’, Lingua 96: 139–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grohmann, K. K. (2000) Prolific Peripheries: A Radical View from the Left, PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Grohmann, K. K. (2003a) Prolific Domains, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grohmann, K. K. (2003b) ‘Successive cyclicity under (anti-) local considerations’, Syntax 6: 260–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grohmann, K. K. (2006) ‘Top issues in questions: topics – topicalization – topicalizability’, in Cheng and Corver 2006, pp. 249–88.
Grohmann, K. K., Drury, J. and Castillo, J. C. (2000) ‘No more EPP’, Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 19: 153–66.Google Scholar
Grohmann, K. K. & Haegeman, L. (2002) ‘Resuming reflexives’, Proceedings of the 19th Scandinavian Conference in Linguistics, Tromsø, Norway.Google Scholar
Grosu, A. and Horvath, J. (2006) ‘Reply to Bhatt and Pancheva's “Late merger of degree clauses”: the irrelevance of (non)conservativity’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 457–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, J. S. (1965) Studies in Lexical Relations, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Gruber, J. S. (1976) Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Gualmini, A. and Crain, S. (2005) ‘The structure of children's linguistic knowledge’, Linguistic Inquiry 36: 463–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guasti, M. T. (2002) Language Acquisition: The Growth of Grammar, Bradford Books, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Guilfoyle, E. (1994) ‘VNPs, finiteness and external arguments’, Proceedings of NELS 24: 141–55.Google Scholar
Guilfoyle, E., Hung, H. and Travis, L. (1992) ‘Spec of IP and spec of VP: two subjects in Austronesian languages’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 375–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haddican, B. (2007) ‘The structural deficiency of verbal pro-forms’, Linguistic Inquiry 38: 539–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haeberli, E. (2003) ‘Categorial features as the source of EPP and abstract Case phenomena’, in Brandner, E. and Zinsmeister, H. (eds.) New Perspectives on Case Theory, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, pp. 89–126.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1986) ‘The present subjunctive in contemporary British English’, Studia Anglica Posnaniensa 19: 61–74.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1990) ‘Non-overt subjects in diary contexts’, in Mascarò, J. and Nespor, M. (eds.) Grammar in Progress, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 167–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1992) Theory and Description in Generative Syntax: A Case Study of West Flemish, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1994) Introduction to Government and Binding Theory, 2nd edn, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1995) The Syntax of Negation, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L. (2000) ‘Inversion, non-adjacent inversion and adjuncts in CP’, in Transactions of the Philological Society98: 121–60.
Haegeman, L. (2006) ‘Clitic climbing and the dual status of sembrare’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 484–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (1991) On the Syntax of Argument Structure, Lexicon Project Working Papers, MIT, Center for Cognitive Science, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (1993a) ‘On argument structure and the lexical expression of semantic relations’, in Hale and Keyser 1993b, pp. 53–109.
Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (eds.) (1993b) The View from Building 20, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (1994) ‘Constraints on argument structure’, in Lust, B., Suñer, M. and Whitman, J. (eds.) Heads, Projections and Learnability, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, vol. I, pp. 53–71.Google Scholar
Halle, M. and Marantz, A. (1993) ‘Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection’, in Hale and Keyser 1993b, pp. 111–76.
Han, C.-H. (2001) ‘Force, negation and imperatives’, The Linguistic Review 18: 289–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, H.-S. (2004) ‘There as an existential operator’, Language Research 40: 451–464 (published by Language Research Institute, Seoul National University).Google Scholar
Hankamer, J. (1971) Constraints on Deletion in Syntax, PhD dissertation, Yale University.Google Scholar
Hankamer, J. and Sag, I. (1976) ‘Deep and surface anaphora’, Linguistic Inquiry 7: 391–428.Google Scholar
Hardt, D. (1993) Verb Phrase Ellipsis: Form, Meaning and Processing, PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Harley, H. (2003) ‘Possession and the double object construction’, in Pica, P. and Rooryck, J. (eds.) Yearbook of Linguistic Variation, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 29–62.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (2001) ‘Why are categories adjacent?’, Journal of Linguistics 37: 1–34.CrossRefGoogle 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: 1569–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hazout, I. (2004a) ‘Long-distance agreement and the syntax of for-to infinitives’, Linguistic Inquiry 35: 338–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazout, I. (2004b) ‘The syntax of existential constructions’, Linguistic Inquiry 35: 393–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heck, F. (2004) A Theory of Pied-Piping, PhD dissertation, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Henderson, B. (2006) ‘Multiple agreement and inversion in Bantu’, Syntax 9: 275–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendrick, R. (1991) ‘The morphosyntax of aspect’, Lingua 85: 171–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, A. (1995) Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect Variation and Parameter-Setting, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Henry, A. and Cottell, S. (2007), ‘A new approach to transitive expletives: evidence from Belfast English’, English Language and Linguistics 11: 279–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herdan, S. and Sharvit, Y. (2006) ‘Definite and non-definite superlatives and NPI licensing’, Syntax 9: 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiemstra, I. (1986) ‘Some aspects of wh-questions in Frisian’, North-Western European Language Evolution (NOWELE) 8: 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiraira, K. (2001) ‘Multiple agree and the Defective Intervention Constraint’, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 40: 67–80.Google Scholar
Hiraira, K. (2005) Dimensions of Symmetry in Syntax: Agreement and Clausal Architecture, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Hiramatsu, K. (2003) ‘Children's judgments on negative questions’, Language Acquisition 11: 99–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoge, K. (1998) ‘The Yiddish double verb construction’, Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics 2: 85–97.Google Scholar
Hojo, K. (1971) ‘The present subjunctive in English NP complements’, Ronshuu 17: 93–112.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. (1999) ‘Remarks on Holmberg's generalization’, Studia Linguistica 53: 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, A. (2000a) ‘Am I unscientific? A reply to Lappin, Levine and Johnson’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 837–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, A. (2000b) ‘Scandinavian stylistic fronting: how any category can become an expletive’, Linguistic Inquiry 31: 445–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, A. (2005) ‘Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish’, Linguistic Inquiry 36: 533–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, S.-H. (2005) Aspects of the Syntax of Questions in English and Korean, PhD dissertation, University of Essex.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. (1995) Logical Form: From GB to Minimalism, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. (1999) ‘Movement and control’, Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. (2000) ‘On A-chains: A reply to Brody’, Syntax 3: 129–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. (2001) Move: A Minimalist Theory of Construal, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. (2003) ‘On control’, in Hendrick, R. (ed.) Minimalist Syntax, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 6–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. (2007) ‘A very short note on existential constructions’, Linguistic Inquiry 38: 410–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982) Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. (1984) ‘On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns’, Linguistic Inquiry 15: 531–74.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. (1991) ‘Remarks on the status of the null object’, in Freidin, R. (ed.) Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 56–76.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. (1993) ‘Reconstruction and the structure of VP: some theoretical consequences’, Linguistic Inquiry 24: 103–38.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. (1994) ‘The contrast between interrogatives and questions’, Journal of Linguistics 30: 411–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurford, J. (1991) ‘The evolution of the critical period for language acquisition’, Cognition 40: 159–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hyams, N. (1986) Language Acquisition and the Theory of Parameters, Reidel, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyams, N. (1992) ‘A reanalysis of null subjects in child language’, in Weissenborn, J., Goodluck, H. and Roeper, T. (eds.) Theoretical Issues in Language Acquisition, Erlbaum, London, pp. 249–67.Google Scholar
Iatridou, S. (1990) ‘About Agr(P)’, Linguistic Inquiry 21: 766–72.Google Scholar
Ingham, R. (2000) ‘Negation and OV order in Late Middle English’, Journal of Linguistics 36: 13–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingham, R. (2002) ‘Negated subjects and objects in 15th century non-literary English’, Language Variation and Change 14: 291–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingham, R. (2007) ‘A structural constraint on negation in Late Middle and Early Modern English’, in Krygier, M. and Siworska, L. (eds.) Medieval English Mirror 3: To Make his Englissh Sweete upon his Tonge, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Isac, D. (2006) ‘In defense of a quantificational account of definite DPs’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 275–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishii, T. (1999) ‘Cyclic spell-out and the that-t effects’, in Proceedings of WCCFL 18: 220–31.Google Scholar
Ishii, T. (2006a) ‘On the relaxation of intervention effects’, in Cheng and Corver 2006, pp. 217–46.
Ishii, T. (2006b) ‘A uniform/nonuniform analysis of overt wh-movement’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 155–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1972) Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1974) Introduction to the X-bar convention, Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1977a) X-bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1977b) ‘Constraints on phrase structure rules’, in Culicover et al. 1977, pp. 249–83.
Jackendoff, R. S. and Culicover, P. W. (2003) ‘The semantic basis of control in English’, Language 79: 517–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeggli, O. (1982) Topics in Romance Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, O. (1984) ‘Subject extraction and the null subject parameter’, NELS 14: 132–53.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, O. (1986) ‘Passive’, Linguistic Inquiry 17: 587–622.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, O. and Safir, K. (1989) The Null Subject Parameter, Kluwer, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, L. (1975) The English Existential, Narr, Tübingen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeong, Y. (2006) The Landscape of Applicatives, PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1937) Analytic Syntax, George Allen and Unwin, London (reprinted in 1969 by Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York).Google Scholar
Jiménez, Á. (2000a) ‘The interpretation of tense and aspect in argument small clauses’, Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 40: 279–98.Google Scholar
Jiménez, Á. (2000b) ‘The aspectual morpheme as and feature movement in argument small clauses’, Generative Linguistics in Poland 1: 59–69.Google Scholar
Johannessen, J. B. (1998) The Syntax of Co-ordination, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. (2000) ‘Few dogs like Whiskas or cats Alpo’, University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 23: 59–82.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. (2001) ‘What VP-ellipsis can do, and what it can't, but not why’, in Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.) The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 439–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K. (2002) ‘Restoring exotic co-ordinations to normalcy’, Linguistic Inquiry 33: 97–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, M. A. (1994) Sardinian Syntax, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Julien, M. (2001) ‘The syntax of complex tenses’, The Linguistic Review 18: 125–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, J. P. (1988) ‘Small clauses and the projection principle’, Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: 78–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kato, M. A. (1999) ‘Strong pronouns and weak pronominals in the null subject parameter’, Probus 11: 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kato, M. A. (2000) ‘The partial pro-drop nature and the restricted VS order in Brazilian Portuguese’, in Kato, M. A. and Negrão, E. V. (eds.) The Null Subject Parameter in Brazilian Portuguese, Vervuert-IberoAmericana, Madrid, pp. 223–58.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. and Postal, P. M. (1964) An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (1984) Connectedness and Binary Branching, Foris, Dordrect.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (1989) ‘Facets of Romance past participle agreement’, in Benincà, P. (ed.) Dialect Variation and the Theory of Grammar, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 85–103.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (2005) ‘Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference to English and French’, in Cinque and Kayne 2005, pp. 3–69.
Kayne, R. S. and Pollock, J.-Y. (1978) ‘Stylistic inversion, successive cyclicity, and Move NP in French’, Linguistic Inquiry 9: 595–621.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. (1999) Projecting the Adjective: The Syntax and Semantics of Gradability and Comparison, Garland, New York.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. (2002) ‘Comparative deletion and optimality in syntax’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 553–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, C. (2003) ‘Ellipsis and syntactic representation’, in Schwabe, K. and Winkler, S. (eds.) The Syntax–Semantics Interface: Interpreting (Omitted) Structure, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. and Merchant, J. (2000), ‘Attributive comparative deletion’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 89–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keyser, S. J. and Roeper, T. (1992) ‘Re: the abstract clitic hypothesis’, Linguistic Inquiry 23: 89–125.Google Scholar
Kimball, J. and Aissen, J. (1971) ‘I think, you think, he think’, Linguistic Inquiry 2: 241–6.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. and Kiparsky, C. (1970) ‘Fact’, in Bierwisch, M. and Heidolph, K. E. (eds.) Programs in Linguistics: A Collection of Papers, Mouton, The Hague.Google Scholar
Kishimoto, H. (2000) ‘Indefinite pronouns and overt N-raising’, Linguistic Inquiry 31: 557–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kishimoto, H. (2006) ‘On the existence of null complementisers in syntax’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 339–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiss, É. K. (2001) ‘The EPP in a topic-prominent language’, in Svenonius, P. (ed.) Subjects, Expletives and the EPP, Oxford University Press, pp. 107–24.Google Scholar
Kitagawa, Y. (1985) ‘Small but clausal’, Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 21: 210–20.Google Scholar
Kitagawa, Y. (1986) Subjects in English and Japanese, PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Klima, E. S. (1964) ‘Negation in English’, in Fodor, J. A. and Katz, J. J. (eds.) The Structure of Language, Prentice–Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 246–323.Google Scholar
Ko, H. (2005) Syntactic Edges and Linearization, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Koeneman, O. (2000) The Flexible Nature of Verb Movement, PhD dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Koizumi, M. (1993) ‘Object agreement phrases and the split VP hypothesis’, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 99–148.Google Scholar
Koizumi, M. (1995) Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Koopman, H. (1984) The Syntax of Verbs: From Verb Movement Rules in the Kru Languages to Universal Grammar, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Koopman, H. (2005) ‘Korean (and Japanese) morphology from a syntactic perspective’, Linguistic Inquiry 36: 601–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopman, H. and Sportiche, D. (1991) ‘The position of subjects’, Lingua 85: 211–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornfilt, J. (2004) ‘Unmasking covert complementiser agreement’, unpublished paper presented at LSA conference, Boston, MA, January 2004.
Koster, J. (1978) ‘Why subject sentences don't exist’, in Keyser, S. J. (ed.) Recent Transformational Studies in European Languages, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 53–64.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1993) ‘On external arguments’, University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17: 103–30.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1995) ‘Stage-level and individual-level predicates’, in Carlson, G. and Pelletier, F. J. (eds.) The Generic Book, Chicago University Press, pp. 125–75.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1996) ‘Severing the external argument from its verb’, in Rooryck, J. and Zaring, L. (eds.) Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 109–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, A. (2001) ‘Syntactic Change’, in Baltin and Collins 2001, pp. 699–729.CrossRef
Kuno, S. (1981) ‘Functional Syntax’, Syntax and Semantics 13: 117–35.Google Scholar
Kural, M. (2005) ‘Tree traversal and word order’, Linguistic Inquiry 36: 367–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuroda, Y. (1988) ‘Whether we agree or not’, Lingvisticae Investigationes 12: 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1969) ‘Contraction, deletion and the inherent variability of the English copula’, Language 45: 715–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladusaw, W. (1979) Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations, PhD dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Lahiri, U. (1998) ‘Focus and negative polarity in Hindi’, Natural Language Semantics 6: 57–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laka, M. I. (1990) Negation in Syntax: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Landau, I. (1999) Elements of Control, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Landau, I. (2001) ‘Control and extraposition: the case of Super-Equi’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 109–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. (2002) ‘(Un)interpretable Neg in Comp’, Linguistic Inquiry 33: 465–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. (2003) ‘Movement out of control’, Linguistic Inquiry 34: 471–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. (2004) ‘The scale of finiteness and the calculus of Control’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 811–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. (2006a) ‘Severing the distribution of PRO from case’, Syntax 9: 153–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. (2006b) ‘Chain resolution in Hebrew V(P) fronting’, Syntax 9: 32–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. (2007) ‘EPP extensions’, Linguistic Inquiry 38: 485–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lappin, S., Levine, R. D. and Johnson, D. E. (2000a) ‘Topic…Comment: the structure of unscientific revolutions’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 665–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lappin, S., Levine, R. D. and Johnson, D. E. (2000b) ‘The revolution confused: a response to our critics’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 873–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lappin, S., Levine, R. D. and Johnson, D. E. (2001) ‘The revolution maximally confused’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 901–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lappin, S. and Shieber, S. (2007), ‘Machine learning theory and practice as a source of insight into universal grammar’, Journal of Linguistics 43: 393–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, R. (1988) ‘On the double object construction’, Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–91.Google Scholar
Larson, R. (1990) ‘Double objects revisited: reply to Jackendoff’, Linguistic Inquiry 21: 589–632.Google Scholar
Larson, R. (1991) ‘Promise and the theory of control’, Linguistic Inquiry 2: 103–39.Google Scholar
Larson, R. and Lefebvre, C. (1991) ‘Predicate cleft in Haitian Creole’, North Eastern Linguistics Society 21: 247–61.Google Scholar
Larson, R. and Marušič, F. (2004) ‘On indefinite pronoun structures with APs: reply to Kishimoto’, Linguistic Inquiry 35: 268–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, H. (1992) ‘Case and expletives: notes toward a parametric account’, Linguistic Inquiry 23: 381–405.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. (1995a) ‘Verbal Morphology: Syntactic Structures meets the Minimalist Program’, in Campos, H. and Kempchinsky, P. (eds.) Evolution and Revolution in Linguistic Theory, Georgetown University Press, pp. 251–75.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. (1995b) ‘Case and expletives revisited: on greed and other human failings’, Linguistic Inquiry 26: 615–33.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. (1998) ‘Some reconstruction riddles’, in Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 5: 83–98, Penn Linguistics Circle, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. (1999) ‘Chains of arguments’, in Epstein, S. D. and Hornstein, N. (eds.) Working Minimalism, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 189–215.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. (2000) Syntactic Structures Revisited: Contemporary Lectures on Classic Transformational Theory, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (with M. Depiante and A. Stepanov).Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. (2003) Minimalist Investigations in Linguistic Theory, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. (2006) ‘Conceptions of the cycle’, in Cheng & Corver 2006: 197–216.
Lasnik, H. and Uriagereka, J. (2002) ‘On the poverty of the challenge’, The Linguistic Review 19: 147–50.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, D. (1991) ‘Relative clauses, licensing and the nature of derivation’, in Rothstein, S. (ed.) Syntax and Semantics 25: Perspectives on Phrase Structure, Academic Press, New York, pp. 209–39.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, D. (1995) ‘Where does Binding Theory apply?’, University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 63–88.Google Scholar
Lechner, W. (2001) ‘Reduced and phrasal comparatives’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 683–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. -E. (2004) Ditransitive Structures and (Anti)locality, PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Legate, J. A. and Yang, C. D. (2002) ‘Empirical re-assessment of stimulus poverty arguments’, The Linguistic Review 19: 151–62.Google Scholar
Lema, J. and Rivero, M. L. (1990) ‘Long head movement: ECP vs. HMC’, Proceedings of NELS 28: 219–45.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, E. (1967) Biological Foundations of Language, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Levin, B. and Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995) Unaccusativity at the Syntax–Lexical Semantic Interface, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. and Elman, J. (2002) ‘Learnability and the statistical study of language: poverty of stimulus arguments revisited’, in Skarabela, B., Fish, S. and Do, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Cascadilla Press, Somerville, MA, pp. 359–70.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1976) ‘The theoretical implications of Subject Raising’, Foundations of Language 14: 257–86.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1999) The Development of Language: Acquisition, Change and Evolution, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. and Hornstein, N. (eds.) (1994) Verb Movement, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linebarger, M. (1987) ‘Negative polarity and grammatical representation’, Linguistics and Philosophy 10: 325–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lobeck, A. (1995) Ellipsis: Functional Heads, Licensing and Identification, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Löbel, E. (1989) ‘Q as a functional category’, in Bhatt, C., Löbel, E. and Schmidt, C. (eds.) Syntactic Phrase Structure Phenomena, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. (1994) ‘Reference and proper names’, Linguistic Inquiry 25: 609–66.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. (1996) ‘The syntax of N-raising: a minimalist theory’, OTS Working Papers 5, Research Institute for Language and Speech, Utrecht.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. (2001) ‘The structure of DPs: some principles, parameters and problems’, in Baltin and Collins 2001, pp. 562–603.CrossRef
Los, B. (2005) The rise of the to-infinitive, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundin, K. (2003) Small Clauses in Swedish: Towards a Unified Account, Studentlitteratur, Lund.Google Scholar
Lust, B. (2006) Child Language: Acquisition and Growth, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lutz, U., Müller, G. and Stechow, A. (eds.) (2000) Wh-Scope Marking, Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1995). The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk, 2nd edn, LEA, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
Maekawa, T. (2007) The English Left Periphery in Linearisation-based HPSG, PhD dissertation, University of Essex.Google Scholar
Mahajan, A. (1994) ‘Active passives’, Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 23: 286–301.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. R. (1994) ‘Locality, Minimalism and parasitic gaps’, Linguistic Inquiry 25: 481–508.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. R. and Roussou, A. (2000) ‘A minimalist approach to A-movement and control’, Lingua 110: 409–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. R. and Wexler, K. (1987) ‘Parameters, binding theory and learnability’, Linguistic Inquiry 18: 413–44.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (1984) On the Nature of Grammatical Relations, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Marcus, G. F. (1993) ‘Negative evidence in language acquisition’, Cognition 46: 53–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, R. (1996) A Minimalist Theory of PRO and Control, PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Martin, R. (2001) ‘Null case and the distribution of PRO’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 141–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masullo, P. (1993) ‘Two types of quirky subjects: Spanish versus Icelandic’, Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society 23: 303–17.Google Scholar
Matsui, C. (1981) ‘The present subjunctive in embedded that clauses’, Insight 13: 45–59.Google Scholar
Matushansky, O. (2006) ‘Head movement in linguistic theory’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 69–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1993) ‘Gapping with shared operators’, Berkeley Linguistics Society 19: 245–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, J. (1997) ‘Subjecthood and subject positions’, in Haegeman, L. (ed.) Elements of Grammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 197–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, J. (2000) ‘Quantifier Float and Wh-Movement in an Irish English’, Linguistic Inquiry 31: 57–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, J. (2001) ‘The morphosyntax of WH-extraction in Irish’, Journal of Linguistics 37: 67–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, J. (2002) ‘Resumption, successive cyclicity, and the locality of operations’, in Epstein, S. D. and Seeley, T. D. (eds.) Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 184–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, D. (1986) Conditions on Wh-Chains, doctoral dissertation, City University of New York.Google Scholar
McDaniel, D. (1989) ‘Partial and multiple wh-movement’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7: 565–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGinnis, M. (2003) ‘Variation in the phrase structure of applicatives’, Linguistic Variation Yearbook 1: 105–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGinnis, M. (2004) ‘Lethal ambiguity’, Linguistic Inquiry 35: 47–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGinnis, M. and Richards, N. (eds.) (2005) Perspectives on phases, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49.
McNally, L. (1992) ‘VP-coordination and the VP-internal subject hypothesis’, Linguistic Inquiry 23: 336–41.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (1966) ‘Developmental Psycholinguistics’, in Smith, F. and Miller, G. A. (eds.) The Genesis of Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 15–84.Google Scholar
Mensching, G. (2000) Infinitive Constructions with Specified Subjects: A Syntactic Analysis of the Romance Languages, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, J. (2001) The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands and Identity in Ellipsis, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, J. (2005) ‘Fragments and ellipsis’, Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 661–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milsark, G. (1974) Existential Sentences in English, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Milsark, G. (1977) ‘Peculiarities of the existential construction in English’, Linguistic Analysis 3: 1–29.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S. (2005) ‘On the EPP’, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 49: 201–36.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S. (2006) ‘Moving to the edge’, Proceedings of the 2006 KALS-KASELL International Conference on English and Linguistics, Pusan National University, Pusan, Korea, pp. 3–18.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S. and Tsujioka, T. (2004) ‘Argument structure and ditransitive verbs in Japanese’, Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13: 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montalbetti, M. (1984) After Binding, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Moore, J. and Perlmutter, D. M. (2000) ‘What does it take to be a dative subject?’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 373–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, J. L. & Travis, L. (1989) ‘Limits on negative information in language input’, Journal of Child Language 16: 531–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moro, A. (1997) The Raising of Predicates, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, G. and Sternefeld, W. (1993) ‘Improper movement and unambiguous binding’, Linguistic Inquiry 24: 461–507.
Munn, A. (1993) Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Co-ordinate Structures, PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Nakajima, H. (2001) ‘Verbs in locative constructions and the generative lexicon’, The Linguistic Review 18: 43–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakajima, H. (2006) ‘Adverbial cognate objects’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 674–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Napoli, D. J. (1993) Syntax: Theory and Problems, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A. and Szendrői, , K. (2004) ‘Superman sentences’, Linguistic Inquiry 35: 149–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, A. and Szendrői, K. (2005) ‘Pro Drop and Pronouns’, in Alderete, J.et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Cascadilla Press, Somerville, MA, pp. 299–307.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (2004) ‘Against a parameter-setting approach to language variation’, Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 4: 181–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (2005) ‘On split CPs, uninterpretable features and the “perfectness” of language’, Zentrum für allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft Papers in Linguistics 35: 399–422.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (2006) ‘A rejoinder to “On the role of parameters in Universal Grammar: a reply to Newmeyer” by Ian Roberts and Anders Holmberg’, ms. University of Washington.
Nkemnji, M. (1995) Heavy Pied-Piping in Nweh, PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Nomura, T. (2006) ModalP and Subjunctive Present, Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, R. and Sadler, L. (2004) ‘Tense beyond the verb: encoding clausal tense/aspect/mood on nominal dependents’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 597–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, J. (1999) ‘Linearization of chains and phonetic realisation of chain links’, in Epstein, S. D. and Hornstein, N. (eds.) Working Minimalism, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 217–49.Google Scholar
Nunes, J. (2001) ‘Sideward movement’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 303–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, J. (2004) Linearization of chains and sideward movement, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Nunes, J. and Uriagereka, J. (2000) ‘Cyclicity and extraction domains’, Syntax 3: 20–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ochi, M. (1999) ‘Multiple spell-out and PF-adjacency’, Proceedings of the North-Eastern Linguistic Society 29: 293–306.Google Scholar
O'Neil, J. (1995) ‘Out of control’, Proceedings of the North-Eastern Linguistics Society 25: 361–71.Google Scholar
Ormazabal, J. (1995) The Syntax of Complementation, PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Ortiz de Urbina, J. (1989) Parameters in the Grammar of Basque, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Ouhalla, J. (1990) ‘Sentential negation, relativized minimality and the aspectual status of auxiliaries’, The Linguistic Review 7: 183–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oya, T. (2002) ‘Reflexives and resultatives: some differences between English and German’, Linguistics 40: 961–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, S. (1999) ‘On the behaviour of definite articles in Chamicuro’, Language 75: 552–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (1970) ‘The two verbs begin’, in Jacobs, R. A. and Rosenbaum, P. S. (eds.) Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Ginn, Waltham, MA, pp. 107–19.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (1982) ‘Complementiser-trace phenomena and the Nominative Island Condition’, The Linguistic Review 1: 297–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (1987) ‘Wh-in-situ: movement and unselective binding’, in Reuland, E. J. and Meulen, A. G. B. (eds.) The Representation of (In)definiteness, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 98–129.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (1995) Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (1997) ‘Optimality Theory and syntax: movement and pronunciation’, in Archangeli, D. and Langendoen, D. T. (eds.) Optimality Theory: An Overview, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 134–70.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (1998) ‘Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation’, in Barbosa, P., Fox, D., Hagstrom, P., McGinnis, M. and Pesetsky, D. (eds.) Is the Best Good Enough?MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 337–83.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (2000) Phrasal Movement and its Kin, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. and Torrego, E. (2001) ‘T-to-C movement: causes and consequences’, in Kenstowicz, M. (ed.) Ken Hale: A Life in Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 355–426.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. and Torrego, E. (2007) ‘The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features’, in Karimi, S., Samiian, V. and Wilkins, W. (eds.) Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 262–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, C. (2003) ‘Linear order and constituency’, Linguistic Inquiry 34: 37–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (2000) ‘The metric of open-mindedness’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 18: 859–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Picallo, M. C. (1991) ‘Nominals and nominalization in Catalan’, Probus 3: 279–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platzack, C. and Holmberg, A. (1989) ‘The role of AGR and finiteness’, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 44: 101–17.Google Scholar
Poletto, C. and Benincà, P. (2004) ‘Topic, focus and V2: defining the CP sublayers’, in Rizzi, L. (ed.) The Structure of IP and CP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. II, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. and Potsdam, E. (2001) ‘Long-distance agreement and Topic in Tsez’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 583–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, M. and Potsdam, E. (2006) ‘Expanding the scope of control and raising’, Syntax 9: 171–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, C. and Sag, I. A. (1994) Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, CSLI Publications, Chicago.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. (1989) ‘Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP’, Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. (1966) ‘On so-called pronouns in English’, in Dinneen, F. (ed.) Nineteenth Monograph on Language and Linguistics, Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC (reprinted in D. Reibel and S. Schane (eds.) (1969) Modern Studies in English, Prentice–Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 201–24).Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. (1974) On Raising: One Rule of English Grammar and its Theoretical Implications, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. (1998) Three Investigations of Extraction, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. and Pullum, G. K. (1978) ‘Traces and the description of English complementiser contraction’, Linguistic Inquiry 9: 1–29.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. and Pullum, G. K. (1988) ‘Expletive noun phrases in subcategorized positions’, Linguistic Inquiry 19: 635–70.Google Scholar
Potsdam, E. (1997) ‘NegP and subjunctive’, Linguistic Inquiry 28: 533–41.Google Scholar
Potsdam, E. (1998) Syntactic Issues in the English Imperative, Garland, New York.Google Scholar
Potts, C. (2002) ‘The syntax and semantics of as-parentheticals’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 623–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Progovac, L. (2004) ‘Small utterances and small clauses: the syntax’, ms. Wayne State University.
Pullum, G. K. and Scholz, B. C. (2002) ‘Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments’, The Linguistic Review 19: 9–50.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L. (2002) Introducing Arguments, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Rackowski, A. and Richards, N. (2005) ‘Phase edge and extraction: a Tagalog case study’, Linguistic Inquiry 36: 565–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. (1981) Transformational Syntax, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Radford, A. (1988) Transformational Grammar: A First Course, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. (1992) ‘The acquisition of the morphosyntax of finite verbs in English’, in Meisel, J. M. (ed.), The Acquisition of Verb Placement, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 23–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. (1993) ‘Head-hunting: on the trail of the nominal Janus’, in Corbett, G., Fraser, N. M. and McGlashan, S. (eds.) Heads in Grammatical Theory, Cambridge University Press, pp. 73–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. (1997a) Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English, Cambridge University Press, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. (1997b) Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction, Cambridge University Press, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. (2004a) Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. (2004b) English Syntax: An Introduction, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. (2007) ‘Split projections, percolation, syncretism and interrogative auxiliary inversion’, Research Reports in Linguistics 53: 157–91, University of Essex.Google Scholar
Radford, A., Atkinson, M., Britain, D., Clahsen, H. and Spencer, A. (1999) Linguistics: An Introduction, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Radford, A. and Vincent, M. (2007) ‘On past participle agreement in transitive clauses in French’, paper presented to XXXIII Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, available at: http://amsacta.cib.unibo.it/archive/00002397/01/PROCEEDINGS_IGG33.pdf
Ramchand, G. (1996) ‘Two subject positions in Scottish Gaelic: the syntax–semantics interface’, Natural Language Semantics 4: 165–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raposo, E. (1986) ‘On the null object in European Portuguese’, in Jaeggli, O. and Silva-Corvalan, C. (eds.) Studies in Romance Linguistics, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 373–90.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1998) ‘Wh-in-situ in the framework of the Minimalist Program’, Natural Language Semantics 6: 29–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reintges, C. H., LeSourd, P. and Chung, S. (2002) ‘Movement, wh-agreement and apparent wh-in-situ’, paper presented to Workshop on Wh-Movement, University of Leiden, December 2002.Google Scholar
Reintges, C. H., LeSourd, P. and Chung, S. (2006) ‘Movement, wh-agreement and apparent wh-in-situ’, in Cheng and Corver 2006, pp. 165–94.
Reuland, E. (2000) ‘Revolution, discovery and an elementary principle of logic’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 843–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuland, E. (2001a) ‘Primitives of Binding’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 439–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuland, E. (2001b) ‘Confusion compounded’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 879–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuland, E. and Everaert, M. (2001) ‘Deconstructing binding’, in Baltin and Collins 2001, pp. 634–70.CrossRef
Rezac, M. (2003) ‘The fine structure of cyclic Agree’, Syntax 6: 156–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rezac, M. (2006) ‘The interaction of Th/Ex and locative inversion’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 685–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, M. D. (2007) ‘On feature inheritance: an argument from the phase impenetrability condition’, Linguistic Inquiry 38: 563–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, N. (1997) What Moves Where When in Which Language?PhD dissertation, MIT. (A published version appeared as Richards 2001.)Google Scholar
Richards, N. (2001) Movement in Language: Interactions and Architectures, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Richards, N. (2004) ‘Against bans on lowering’, Linguistic Inquiry 35: 453–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, E. (1991) ‘Two functional categories in noun phrases: evidence from Modern Hebrew’, in Rothstein, S. (ed.) Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing, Academic Press, New York, pp. 37–62.Google Scholar
Rivero, M. L. (2004) ‘Spanish quirky subjects, person restrictions, and the person-case constraint’, Linguistic Inquiry 35: 494–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1982) Issues in Italian Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1986) ‘Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro’, Linguistic Inquiry 17: 501–57.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1990) Relativised Minimality, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1997) ‘The fine structure of the left periphery’, in Haegeman, L. (ed.) Elements of Grammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 281–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (2000) ‘Remarks on early null subjects’, in Freidemann, M.-A. and Rizzi, L. (eds.) The Acquisition of Syntax, Longman, London, pp. 269–92.
Rizzi, L. (2001a) ‘Relativized minimality effects’, in Baltin and Collins 2001, pp. 89–110.
Rizzi, L. (2001b) ‘On the position “Int(errogative)” in the left periphery of the clause’, in Cinque, G. and Salvi, G. (eds.) Current Issues in Italian Syntax, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 287–96.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (2004) ‘Locality and left periphery’, in Belletti, A. (ed.) Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. III, Oxford University Press, pp. 223–51.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (2006) ‘On the form of chains: criterial positions and ECP effects’, in Cheng and Corver 2006, pp. 97–133.
Rizzi, L. and Shlonsky, U. (2005) ‘Strategies of subject extraction’, ms., Universities of Siena and Geneva.
Roberts, I. (1985) ‘Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 3: 21–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. (1987) The Representation of Implicit and Dethematized Subjects, Foris, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. (1998) ‘Have/Be raising, Move F and Procrastinate’, Linguistic Inquiry 29: 113–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. (1993) Verbs and Diachronic Syntax, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. (1994) ‘Two types of head movement in Romance’, in Lightfoot & Hornstein 1994, pp. 207–42.CrossRef
Roberts, I. (1997) ‘Restructuring, head movement and locality’, Linguistic Inquiry 28: 423–60.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. (2000) ‘Caricaturing dissent’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 849–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. (2001a) ‘Who has confused what? More on Lappin, Levine and Johnson’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 887–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. (2001b) ‘Head Movement’, in Baltin and Collins 2001, pp. 113–47.
Roberts, I. and Holmberg, A. (2006) ‘On the role of parameters in Universal Grammar: a reply to Newmeyer’, ms. University of Cambridge.
Roberts, I. and Roussou, A. (2002) ‘The Extended Projection Principle as a condition on the tense dependency’, in. Svenonius, P. (ed.) Subjects, Expletives and the EPP, Oxford University Press, pp. 125–55.Google Scholar
Rohrbacher, B. (1999) Morphology-Driven Syntax: A Theory of V-to-I Raising and Pro-drop, Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero, M. (1997) ‘The correlation between scope reconstruction and connectivity effects’, in Curtiss, E., Lyle, J. and Webster, G. (eds.) Proceedings of the XVI West Coast Conference in Formal Linguistics, CLSI, Stanford, CA, pp. 351–65.Google Scholar
Rosen, S. T. (1990) Argument Structure and Complex Predicates, Garland, New York.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. S. (1965) The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions, PhD dissertation, MIT (published as Rosenbaum 1967).Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. S. (1967) The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Rosengren, I. (2002) ‘A syntactic device in the service of semantics’, Studia Linguistica 56: 145–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967) Constraints on Variables in Syntax, PhD dissertation, MIT (published as Infinite Syntax! by Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, NJ, 1986).Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1969) ‘Guess who’, in Binnick, R. I., Davison, A., Green, G. M. and Morgan, J. L. (eds.) Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, University of Chicago, pp. 252–86.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1970) ‘On declarative sentences’, in Jacobs, R. A. and Rosenbaum, P. S. (eds.) Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Ginn, Waltham, MA, pp. 222–72.Google Scholar
Rothstein, S. D. (1983) The Syntactic Form of Predication, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Rudin, C. (1988) ‘On multiple questions and multiple wh-fronting’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 445–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runner, J. (1998) Noun Phrase Licensing and Interpretation, Garland, New York.Google Scholar
Runner, J. (2006) ‘Lingering challenges to the raising-to-object and object-control constructions’, Syntax 9: 193–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rupp, L. (2003) The Syntax of Imperatives in English and Germanic: Word Order Variation in the Minimalist Framework, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rymer, R. (1993) Genie: A Scientific Tragedy, Harper Perennial, New York.Google Scholar
Sabel, J. (2002) ‘A minimalist analysis of syntactic islands’, The Linguistic Review 19: 271–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saddy, D. (1991) ‘Wh scope mechanisms in Bahasa Indonesia’, in L. Cheng and H. Demirdache (eds.) MIT Working Papers in Linguistics15: 183–218.
Sadler, L. and Arnold, D. J. (1994) ‘Prenominal adjectives and the phrasal/lexical distinction’, Journal of Linguistics 30: 187–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Safir, K. (1983) ‘On small clauses as constituents’, Linguistic Inquiry 14: 730–5.Google Scholar
Safir, K. (1984) ‘Missing subjects in German’, in Toman, I. (ed.) Studies in German Grammar, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 193–230.Google Scholar
Safir, K. (1986) Syntactic Chains, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Safir, K. (1993) ‘Perception, selection and structural economy’, Natural Language Semantics 2: 47–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, I. (1980) Deletion and Logical Form, Garland, New York.Google Scholar
Sag, I. (1997) ‘English relative clause constructions’, Journal of Linguistics 33: 431–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, G. (2002) ‘Exploring the richness of the stimulus’, The Linguistic Review 19: 73–104.Google Scholar
Sampson, G. (2005) The Language Instinct Debate, Continuum International Publishing Group, London.Google Scholar
Sauerland, U. (1998) The Meaning of Chains, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Sauerland, U. and Elbourne, P. (2002) ‘Total reconstruction, PF movement and derivational order’, Linguistic Inquiry 33: 283–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawada, H. (1995) Studies in English and Japanese Auxiliaries: A Multi-stratal Approach, Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo.Google Scholar
Scholz, B. C. and Pullum, G. K. (2002) ‘Searching for arguments to support linguistic nativism’, The Linguistic Review 19: 185–223.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. (1999) ‘English expletive constructions are not infected’, Linguistic Inquiry 30: 467–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütze, C. (2004) ‘Synchronic and diachronic microvariation in English do’, Lingua 114: 495–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, B. (1999) ‘On the syntax of either…or’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 339–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, B. (2000) Topics in Ellipsis, GLSA Publications, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, R. (2006) ‘The role of dimensions in the syntax of noun phrases’, Syntax 9: 67–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seppänen, A. and Trotta, J. (2000) ‘The wh+that pattern in present-day English’, in Kirk, J. M. (ed.) Corpora Galore: Analyses and Techniques in Describing English, Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp. 161–75.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, U. (1991) ‘Quantifiers as functional heads: a study of quantifier float in Hebrew’, Lingua 84: 159–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á. (1991) ‘Icelandic case-marked PRO and the licensing of lexical arguments’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 327–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á. (1996) ‘Icelandic finite verb agreement’, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57: 1–46.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2002) ‘To be an oblique subject: Russian vs. Icelandic’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 691–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á. (2006) ‘The nominative puzzle and the Low Nominative Hypothesis’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, N. (1998) ‘Jackdaws, sex and language acquisition’, Glot International 3, 7: 7.Google Scholar
Smith, N. (2004) Chomsky: Ideas and Ideals, 2nd edn, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, N. and Cormack, A. (2002) ‘Indeterminacy, inference, iconicity and interpretation: aspects of the grammar–pragmatics interface’, in Makri-Tsilipakou, M. (ed.) Selected Papers on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, pp. 38–53.Google Scholar
Sobin, N. (1997) ‘Agreement, default rules and grammatical viruses’, Linguistic Inquiry 28: 318–43.Google Scholar
Sobin, N. (2002) ‘The Comp-trace effect, the adverb effect, and minimal CP’, Journal of Linguistics 38: 527–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobin, N. (2003) ‘Negative inversion as non-movement’, Syntax 6: 183–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobin, N. (2004) ‘Expletive constructions are not “lower right corner” movement constructions’, Linguistic Inquiry 35: 503–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. (2000) ‘Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs’, Language 76: 859–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speas, P. (1986) Adjunction and Projections in Syntax, PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. J. (1991) Morphological Theory, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Spinillo, M. G. (2004) Reconceptualising the English Determiner Class, PhD dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
Sportiche, D. (1988) ‘A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure’, Linguistic Inquiry 19: 425–49.Google Scholar
Sportiche, D. (1998) ‘Movement, agreement and case’, in Partitions and Atoms of Clause Structure, Routledge, London, pp. 88–243.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2007) ‘Rhetorical questions and wh-movement’, Linguistic Inquiry 38: 572–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stepanov, A. (2001) ‘Late adjunction and minimalist phrase structure’, Syntax 4: 94–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockwell, R., Schachter, P. and Hall Partee, B. (1973) The Major Syntactic Structures of English, Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
Stowell, T. (1981) Origins of Phrase Structure, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Stowell, T. (1982) ‘The tense of infinitives’, Linguistic Inquiry 13: 561–70.Google Scholar
Stowell, T. (1983) ‘Subjects across categories’, The Linguistic Review, 2: 285–312.Google Scholar
Stowell, T. (1991) ‘Small clause restructuring’, in Freidin, R. (ed.) Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 182–218.Google Scholar
Stroik, T. (1990) ‘Adverbs as V-sisters’, Linguistic Inquiry 21: 654–61.Google Scholar
Stroik, T. (2001) ‘On the light verb hypothesis’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 362–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suñer, M. (1984) ‘Controlled pro’, in Baldi, P. (ed.) Papers from the XIIth Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, University Park Press, Baltimore, pp. 254–73.Google Scholar
Suñer, M. (2000) ‘The syntax of direct quotes with special reference to Spanish and English’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 525–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surányi, B. (2006) ‘Mechanisms of wh-saturation and interpretation in multiple wh-movement’, in Cheng and Corver 2006, pp. 288–318.
Svenonius, P. (2002a) ‘Case is uninterpretable aspect’, www.hum.uit.no/a/svenonius/paperspage.html
Svenonius, P. (2002b) ‘Icelandic case and the structure of events’, www.hum.uit.no/a/svenonius/paperspage.html
Svenonius, P. (2004) ‘On the edge’, in Adger, D., Cat, C. and Tsoulas, G. (eds.), Peripheries: Syntactic Edges and their Effects, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 261–87.Google Scholar
Tallerman, M. O. (1993) ‘Case assignment and the order of functional projections in Welsh’, in Siewierska, A. (ed.), Eurotyp Working Papers, Programme in Language Typology, European Science Foundation, Berlin, pp. 1–41.Google Scholar
Tamburelli, M. (2006) ‘Remarks on richness’, UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 18: 1–17.Google Scholar
Tamburelli, M. (2007) The Role of Lexical Acquisition in Simultaneous Bilingualism, PhD dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, T. (1990) ‘D-projections and N-projections in Norwegian’, in Nespor, M. and Mascarò, J. (eds.) Grammar in Progress, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 419–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ten Hacken, P. (2001) Review of Radford (1997a/b), Natural Language Engineering 7/1.
Tenny, C. (1987) Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectedness, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. (2002) ‘Development of the concept of “the poverty of stimulus”’, The Linguistic Review 19: 51–71.Google Scholar
Thompson, E. (2006) ‘The structure of bounded events’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 211–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, R. (1995) ‘Referentiality and wh-movement in child English: juvenile D-linkuency’, Language Acquisition 4: 139–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ticio, M. E. (2003) On the Structure of DPs, PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Ticio, M. E. (2005) ‘Locality and anti-locality in Spanish DPs’, Syntax 8: 229–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. (1988) ‘The origins and development of periphrastic auxiliary do: a case of destigmatisation’, Dutch Working Papers in English Language and Linguistics 3: 1–30.Google Scholar
Toda, T. (2007) ‘So-inversion revisited’, Linguistic Inquiry 38: 188–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torrego, E. (1984) ‘On inversion in Spanish and some of its effects’, Linguistic Inquiry 15: 103–29.Google Scholar
Toyoshima, T. (2000) ‘Heading for their own places’, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 36: 93–108.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1972) A History of English Syntax: A Transformational Approach to the History of English Sentence Structure, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
Travis, L. (1984) Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Uchibori, A. (2000) The syntax of subjunctive complements: Evidence from Japanese, unpublished dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Ura, H. (1993) ‘On feature-checking for wh-traces’, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 243–80.Google Scholar
Ura, H. (2001) ‘Local economy and generalized pied-piping’, The Linguistic Review 18: 169–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, J. (1988) On Government, PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J. (1998) Rhyme and Reason, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J. (2000) ‘On the emptiness of “design” polemics’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 18: 863–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, J. (2001) ‘Cutting derivational options’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 891–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vainikka, A. and Levy, Y. (1999) ‘Empty subjects in Finnish and Hebrew’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 613–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craenenbroeck, J. and Dicken, M. (2006) ‘Ellipsis and EPP repair’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 653–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eynde, F. (2006) ‘NP-internal agreement and the structure of the noun phrase’, Journal of Linguistics 42: 139–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelderen, E. (2004) Grammaticalization as Economy, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langendonck, W. (1994) ‘Determiners as heads?’, Cognitive Linguistics 5: 243–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riemsdijk, H. (1989) ‘Movement and regeneration’, in Benincà, P. (ed.) Dialectal Variation and the Theory of Grammar, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 105–36.Google Scholar
Verkuyl, H. J., Swart, H. and Hout, A. (2005) Perspectives on Aspect, Springer, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vikner, S. (1995) Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in Germanic Languages, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Visser, F. T. (1966) A Historical Syntax of the English Language, vol. II, Brill, Leiden.Google Scholar
Fintel, K. (1999) ‘NPI licensing, Strawson entailment and context dependency’, Journal of Semantics 16: 97–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, A. (2001) ‘Wh-in-situ languages’, in Baltin and Collins 2001, pp. 203–25.CrossRef
Watanabe, A. (2004) ‘The genesis of Negative Concord: syntax and morphology of Negative Doubling’, Linguistic Inquiry 35: 559–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, A. (2006) ‘The pied-piper feature’, in Cheng and Corver 2006, pp. 47–70.
Wexler, K. (1994) ‘Optional infinitives, head movement and the economy of derivations’, in Lightfoot & Hornstein 1994, pp. 305–50.
Wexler, K. (1998) ‘Very early parameter-setting and the unique checking constraint: a new explanation of the optional infinitive stage’, Lingua 106: 23–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, E. (1980) ‘Predication’, Linguistic Inquiry 11: 203–38.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1983) ‘Against small clauses’, Linguistic Inquiry 14: 287–308.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (2006) ‘The subject-predicate theory of there’, Linguistic Inquiry 36: 648–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, D. (2000) ‘On the distribution of resumptive pronouns and wh-trace in Welsh’, Journal of Linguistics 36: 531–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiltschko, M. (1998) ‘On the syntax and semantics of (relative) pronouns and determiners’, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2: 143–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiltschko, M. (2001) ‘The syntax of pronouns: evidence from Halkomelem Salish’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 157–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfram, W. (1971) ‘Black–white speech differences revisited’, in Wolfram, W. and Clark, N. H. (eds.), Black–White Speech Relationships, Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, DC, pp. 139–61.Google Scholar
Woolford, E. (1991) ‘VP-internal subjects in VSO and nonconfigurational languages’, Linguistic Inquiry 22: 503–40.Google Scholar
Woolford, E. (2006) ‘Lexical case, inherent case and argument structure’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 111–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, L. (2003) ‘Choice between the overt and the covert’, Transactions of the Philological Society 101: 81–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, C. D. (1999) ‘Unordered Merge and its linearization’, Syntax 1: 38–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, H. (2006) ‘On overt and covert wh- and relative movement in Hindi and Punjabi’, in Cheng and Corver 2006, pp. 135–64.
Zagona, K. (1987) Verb Phrase Syntax, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Zamparelli, R. (2000) Layers in the Determiner Phrase, Garland, New York.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, R. (1991) Syntactic Properties of Sentential Negation: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages, PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Zlatić, L. (1997) The Structure of the Serbian Noun Phrase, PhD dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Zoerner, E. C. (1995) Co-ordination: The Syntax of &P, PhD dissertation, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
Zwart, C. J.-W. (2001) ‘Syntactic and phonological verb movement’, Syntax 4: 34–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, A. (2002) ‘I wonder what kind of construction that this kind of example illustrates’, in Beaver, D., Martínez, L. D. Casillas, Clark, B. Z. and Kaufmann, S. (eds.) The Construction of Meaning, CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp. 219–48.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] 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
  • Andrew Radford, University of Essex
  • Book: Analysing English Sentences
  • Online publication: 05 June 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801617.012
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
  • Andrew Radford, University of Essex
  • Book: Analysing English Sentences
  • Online publication: 05 June 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801617.012
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
  • Andrew Radford, University of Essex
  • Book: Analysing English Sentences
  • Online publication: 05 June 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801617.012
Available formats
×