Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:50:05.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introducing the Minimalist Program to students of English*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 February 2011

LILIANE HAEGEMAN  and
TERJE LOHNDAL
LILIANE HAEGEMAN
Affiliation:
English Linguistics, Rozier 44, University of Ghent, B-9000 Ghent, [email protected]
TERJE LOHNDAL
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, 1401 Marie Mount Hall, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this review we evaluate two textbook introductions to the Minimalist Program (MP), the most recent incarnation of the Chomskyan paradigm: Analysing English sentences and An introduction to English sentence structure, both by Andrew Radford. Since there are no significant differences between the two books, our review focuses on the first version, which is slightly longer than the second.

Type
Review Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 149 - 172
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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, Bas. 1992. Small clauses in English: The non verbal types. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aarts, Bas. 1997/2008. English syntax and argumentation. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adger, David. 2003. Core syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alhorais, Nasser. 2007. The categorical status of the small clause node; a minimalist approach. Newcastle and Durham Working Papers in Linguistics 13.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. 2009. Structures and strategies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric, Hornstein, Norbert & Nunes, Jairo. 2010. The movement theory of control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2007. Agree, phases, and intervention effects. Linguistic Analysis 33, 54–96.Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, Noel. 1997. Analysing sentences: An introduction to English syntax, 2nd edition. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1975. The logical structure of linguistic theory. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Belletti, Adriana (ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 3, 104–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Gärtner, Hans-Martin & Sauerland, Uli (eds.), Interfaces + recursion = language? Chomsky's Minimalism and the view from syntax–semantics, 1–30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos P. & Zubizaretta, Maria-Luisa (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory, 133–66. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Lasnik, Howard. 1993. The theory of Principles and Parameters. In Jacobs, Joachim, von Stechow, Arnim, Sternefeld, Wolfgang & Venneman, Theo (eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, 506–69. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2008. Small clauses reconsidered: Not so small and not all alike. Lingua 118, 261–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coopmans, Peter & Stevenson, Suzanne. 1991. How extraction from finite and infinitival complements: A surprising asymmetry. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 359–67.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ernst, Thomas. 2002. The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ernst, Thomas. 2007. On the role of semantics in a theory of adverb syntax. Lingua 117, 1008–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernst, Thomas. 2009. Speaker-oriented adverbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27, 497–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van. 2009. An introduction to the grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, Günther & Kremers, Joost. 2009. Phases and cycles. Some problems with Phase theory. The Linguistic Review 26, 385–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2006. Thinking syntactically. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of semantic relations. In Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.), The view from building 20, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay. 2002. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, events and licensing. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2009. A theory of syntax: Minimal operations and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert, Nunes, Jairo & Grohmann, Kleanthes K.. 2005. Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. et al. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Boston and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from the verb. In Rooryck, Johan & Zaring, Laurie (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon, 109–37. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of control: Structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2004. The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22, 811–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335–91.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 2010. Grammar as science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1981. Restricting the theory of transformations. In Hornstein, Norbert & Lightfoot, David (eds.), Explanation in linguistics, 152–73. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard & Lohndal, Terje. 2010. Government–Binding/Principles & Parameters theory. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 1, 40–50.Google ScholarPubMed
Martin, Roger. 1996. A minimalist theory of PRO and control. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Nilsen, Øystein. 2004. Domains for adverbs. Lingua 114, 809–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365–424.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 1981. Transformational syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 1988. Transformational grammar: A first course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 1997a. Syntactic theory and the structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 1997b. Syntax: a minimalist introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 2004a. Minimalist syntax: Exploring the structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 2004b. English syntax: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of grammar: A handbook of generative syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starke, Michal. 1994. On the format for small clauses. GenGenP 2 (1), 79–97.Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim. 1983. Subjects across categories. The Linguistic Review 2, 285–312.Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 425–51.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. Multiple spell-out. In Epstein, Samuel David & Hornstein, Norbert (eds.), Working Minimalism, 251–82. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar