Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-mggfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-01T13:50:50.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Andrew Radford, Relative clauses: Structure and variation in everyday English (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 161). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. Pp. xi + 314.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2020

Robert D. Borsley Open the ORCID record for Robert D. Borsley [Opens in a new window]
Robert D. Borsley*
Affiliation:
University of Essex & Bangor University
*
Author’s address: School of Languages, Literatures and Linguistics, Bangor University, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2DG, UKrborsley@essex.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reviews
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , 01 February 2020 , pp. 217 - 222
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020 

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

Alotaibi, Mansour & Borsley, Robert D.. 2013. Gaps and resumptive pronouns in Modern Standard Arabic. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 6–26. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Aoun, Joseph, Choueiri, Lina & Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Resumption, movement, and derivational economy. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 371–403.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert D. 2013. On the nature of Welsh unbounded dependencies. Lingua 133, 1–29.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Henderson, John M. & Ferreira, Fernanda. 1990. Effects of foveal processing difficulty on the perceptual span in reading: Implications for attention and eye movement control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 16, 417–429.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney D. & Pullum, Geoffrey K. et al. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A.. 1992. Anaphors in English and the scope of binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 261–303.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 1990. Syntactic theory and the acquisition of English syntax: The nature of early child grammars of English. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew, Felser, Claudia & Boxell, Oliver. 2012. Preposition copying and pruning in present-day English. English Language and Linguistics 16, 403–426.Google Scholar
Rayner, Keith & Duffy, Susan A.. 1986. Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition 14, 191–201.Google Scholar
Rayner, Keith & Pollatsek, Alexander. 1987. Eye movements in reading: A tutorial review. In Coltheart, Max (ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading (Psychology Library Editions: Cognitive Science), 327–362. London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 1997. English relative clause constructions. Journal of Linguistics 33, 431–484.Google Scholar
Willis, David W. E. 2011. The limits of resumption in Welsh wh-dependencies. In Rouveret, Alain (ed.), Resumptive pronouns at the interfaces, 189–222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar