Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:27:52.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Persian complex predicates and the limits of inheritance-based analyses1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 November 2009

STEFAN MÜLLER
STEFAN MÜLLER*
Affiliation:
Freie Universität Berlin
*
Author's address: Freie Universität Berlin, Institut für Deutsche und Niederländische Philologie, Deutsche Grammatik, Habelschwerdter Allee 45, D-14195 Berlin, Germany[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Persian complex predicates pose an interesting challenge for theoretical linguistics since they have both word-like and phrase-like properties. For example, they can feed derivational processes, but they are also separable by the future auxiliary or the negation prefix.

Various proposals have been made in the literature to capture the nature of Persian complex predicates, among them analyses that treat them as purely phrasal or purely lexical combinations. Mixed analyses that analyze them as words by default and as phrases in the non-default case have also been suggested.

In this paper, I show that theories that rely exclusively on the classification of patterns in inheritance hierarchies cannot account for the facts in an insightful way unless they are augmented by transformations or some similar device. I then show that a lexical account together with appropriate grammar rules and an argument composition analysis of the future auxiliary has none of the shortcomings that classification-based analyses have and that it can account for both the phrasal and the word-like properties of Persian complex predicates.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , November 2010 , pp. 601 - 655
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 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.)

Footnotes

[1]

I thank Mina Esmaili, Fateme Nemati, Pollet Samvelian, Yasser Shakeri, and Mehran A. Taghvaipour for help with the Persian data and for comments on an earlier version of this paper. Without their help I would not have been able to write this paper. In addition I want to thank Elham Alaee for discussion of data and Daniel Hole and Jacob Maché for comments on the paper. I thank Emily M. Bender and Felix Bildhauer for discussion. Special thanks go to Bob Borsley, Karine Megerdoomian, Ivan Sag, Pollet Samvelian, and several anonymous reviewers, whose comments on earlier versions of the paper improved it considerably. I also thank Philippa Cook for proof reading.

Research related to this paper was presented at the HPSG conference 2006 in Varna, at the Institut für Linguistik in Leipzig, at the Institut für Linguistik in Potsdam, at the Centrum für Informations und Sprachverarbeitung in Munich, at the center for Computational Linguistics of the Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken, in 2008 at the conference Complex Predicates in Iranian Languages at the Université Sorbonne Nouvelle in Paris, and in 2008 at the conference Syntax of the World's Languages at the Freie Universität Berlin. I thank the respective institutions and the organizers of the HPSG conference for the invitation and all audiences for discussion.

This work was supported by a grant from Agence Nationale de la Recherche and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft to the Franco-German project PER-GRAM: Theory and Implementation of a Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar for Persian (DFG MU 2822/3-1).

References

REFERENCES

Ackerman, Farrell & Webelhuth, Gert. 1998. A theory of predicates (CSLI Lecture Notes 76). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Alexopoulou, Theodora & Kolliakou, Dimitra. 2002. On Linkhood, Topicalization and Clitic Left Dislocation. Journal of Linguistics 38.2, 193–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 22). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Artstein, Ron. 2005. Coordination of parts of words. Lingua 115, 359–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barjasteh, Darab. 1983. Morphology, syntax and semantics of Persian compound verbs: A lexicalist approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.Google Scholar
Barwise, Jon & Perry, John. 1983. Situations and attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Becker, Thomas. 1993. Back-formation, cross-formation, and ‘bracketing paradoxes’ in paradigmatic morphology. In Booij, Geert & Marle, Jaap van (eds.), Yearbook of morphology, vol. 6, 1–25. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1932. Die deutsche Syntax: Eine geschichtliche Darstellung, vol. 4: Wortstellung: Periodenbau. Heidelberg: Carl Winters.Google Scholar
Bergen, Benjamin K. & Chang, Nancy. 2005. Embodied Construction Grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In Östman, Jan-Ola & Fried, Miriam (eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions, 147–190. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred. 1987. A structural paradox in lexical knowledge. In van der Meer, Elke & Hoffmann, J. (eds.), Knowledg- aided information processing, 141–172. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Bildhauer, Felix. 2008. Representing information structure in an HPSG grammar of Spanish. Ph.D. dissertation, Universität Bremen.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. & Sag, Ivan A. (eds.). In preparation. Sign-based Construction Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert D. 2006. Syntactic and lexical approaches to unbounded dependencies. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 49, 31–57. http://www.essex.ac.uk/linguistics/publications/errl/errl_49.pdf (14 October 2009).Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Mchombo, Sam A.. 1995. The Lexical Integrity Principle: Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 13, 181–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Copestake, Ann, Flickinger, Daniel P., Pollard, Carl J. & Sag, Ivan A.. 2005. Minimal Recursion Semantics: An introduction. Research on Language and Computation 4.3, 281–332. http://lingo.stanford.edu/sag/papers/copestake.pdf (11 October 2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crysmann, Berthold. 2002. Constraint-based coanalysis: Portuguese cliticisation and morphology–syntax interaction in HPSG (Saarbrücken Dissertations in Computational Linguistics and Language Technology 15). Saarbrücken: Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz und Universität des Saarlandes.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dabir-Moghaddam, Mohammad. 1997. Compound verbs in Persian. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 27.2, 25–59.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2001. From formula to schema: The acquisition of English questions. Cognitive Linguistics 11.1–2, 83–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Kuthy, Kordula. 2002. Discontinuous NPs in German. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar (Synthese Language Library 7). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David. 2004. On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry 35.3, 355–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Family, Neiloufar. 2006. Exploration of semantic space: The case of light verb constructions in Persian. Ph.D. dissertation, EHESS, Paris.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert. 2001. Features, θ-roles, and free constituent order. Linguistic Inquiry 32.3, 405–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul & O'Connor, Mary Catherine. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64.3, 501–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folli, Raffaella, Harley, Heidi & Karimi, Simin. 2005. Determinants of event type in Persian complex predicates. Lingua 115, 1365–1401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, Elaine J. & Michaelis, Laura A. (eds.). 2003. Mismatch: Form–function incongruity and the architecture of grammar (CSLI Lecture Notes 163). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald. 1981. Unbounded dependencies and coordinate structure. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 155–184.Google Scholar
Geach, Peter Thomas. 1970. A program for syntax. Synthese 22, 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila & Massam, Diane. 1994. Lexical/syntactic relations without projection. Linguistic Analysis 23.3–4, 175–217.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan & Sag, Ivan A.. 2000. Interrogative investigations: The form, meaning, and use of English interrogatives (CSLI Lecture Notes 123). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure (Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1996. Words by default: Optimizing constraints and the Persian complex predicate. Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 22, 132–146. http://roa.rutgers.edu/files/415-0900/roa-415-goldberg-2.pdf (18 October 2009).Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2003. Words by default: The Persian Complex Predicate Construction. In Francis, & Michaelis, (eds.), 117–146.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language (Oxford Linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E., Casenhier, Devin & Sethuraman, Nitya. 2005. The role of prediction in construction learning. Journal of Child Language 32, 407–426.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grimshaw, Jane & Mester, Ralf-Armin. 1985. Complex verb formation in Eskimo. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3.1, 1–19.Google Scholar
Gunji, Takao. 1986. Subcategorization and word order. In Poser, William J. (ed.), The Second International Workshop on Japanese Syntax, 1–21, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Haftka, Brigitta. 1981. Reihenfolgebeziehungen im Satz (Topologie). In Heidolph, Karl Erich, Fläming, Walter & Motsch, Walter (eds.), Grundzüge einer deutschen Grammatik, 702–764. Berlin: Akademie.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1985. Natural Syntax: Iconicity and erosion (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2002. Understanding morphology (Understanding Language Series). London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Erhard W. & Nakazawa, Tsuneko. 1989. Subcategorization and VP structure in German (Aspects of German VP Structure, SfS-Report-01-93). Tübingen: Eberhard-Karls-Universität.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Erhard W. & Nakazawa, Tsuneko. 1994. Linearizing AUXs in German verbal complexes. In Nerbonne, et al. (eds.), 11–38.Google Scholar
Höhle, Tilman N. 1982. Über Komposition und Derivation: Zur Konstituentenstruktur von Wortbildungsprodukten im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 1, 76–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 2008. Wozu Konstruktionen? Linguistische Berichte 213, 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2003. Syntactic categories and Persian stress. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21.2, 333–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 1997. Persian complex verbs: Idiomatic or compositional? Lexicology 3.2, 273–318.Google Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 2005. A Minimalist approach to scrambling: Evidence from Persian (Studies in Generative Grammar 76). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karimi-Doostan, Gholamhossein. 1997. Light verb constructions in Persian and Kurdish. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Essex.Google Scholar
Kathol, Andreas. 1994. Passives without lexical rules. In Nerbonne, et al. (eds.), 237–272.Google Scholar
Kathol, Andreas. 1995. Linearization-based German syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Kathol, Andreas. 1999. Agreement and the syntax–morphology interface in HPSG. In Levine, Robert D. & Green, Georgia M. (eds.), Studies in contemporary phrase structure grammar, 223–274. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kathol, Andreas. 2000. Linear Syntax. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul. 2005. Argument structure constructions and the argument–adjunct distinction. In Fried, Mirjam & Boas, Hans C. (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (Constructional Approaches to Language 4), 71–98. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~kay/ASCs.pdf (7 November 2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul & Fillmore, Charles J.. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What's X doing Y? construction. Language 75.1, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 63–99.Google Scholar
Kiss, Tibor. 1995. Infinite Komplementation: Neue Studien zum deutschen Verbum infinitum (Linguistische Arbeiten 333). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koenig, Jean-Pierre. 1999. Lexical relations (Stanford Monographs in Linguistics). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Krenn, Brigitte & Erbach, Gregor. 1994. Idioms and support verb constructions. In Nerbonne, et al. (1994), 365–396.Google Scholar
Krieger, Hans-Ulrich & Nerbonne, John. 1993. Feature-based inheritance networks for computational lexicons. In Briscoe, Ted, Copestake, Ann & Paiva, Valeria de (eds.), Inheritance, defaults, and the lexicon, 90–136. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lüdeling, Anke. 1997. Strange resultatives in German: New evidence for a semantic treatment. In Blight, Ralph C. & Moosally, Michelle J. (eds.), The 1997 Texas Linguistics Society Conference: The syntax and semantics of predication (Texas Linguistic Forum 38), 223–233. Austin, TX: University of Texas, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4.2, 201–225. http://www.ling.upenn.edu/papers/v4.2-contents.html (12 November 2004).Google Scholar
Megerdoomian, Karine. 2002. Beyond words and phrases: A unified theory of predicate composition. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California. http://www.zoorna.org/publications.html (29 March 2007).Google Scholar
Meurers, Walt Detmar. 2000. Lexical generalizations in the syntax of German non-finite constructions (Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340 No. 145). Tübingen: Eberhard-Karls-Universität. http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~dm/papers/diss.html (19 August 2002).Google Scholar
Meurers, Walt Detmar, Penn, Gerald & Richter, Fraqnk. 2002. A web-based in-structional platform for constraint-based grammar formalisms and parsing. In Radev, Dragomir & Brew, Chris (eds.), Effective tools and methodologies for teaching NLP and CL (Workshop held at 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics), 18–25. Philadelphia, PA. http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~dm/papers/acl02.html (8 January 2004).Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2006. Construction Grammar. In Brown, Keith (ed.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn., vol. 3, 73–84. Oxford: Elsevier. http://spot.colorado.edu/~michaeli/publications.html (17 January 2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. & Ruppenhofer, Josef. 2001. Beyond alternations: A constructional model of the German applicative pattern (Stanford Monographs in Linguistics). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Miller, Philip H. & Sag, Ivan A.. 1997. French clitic movement without clitics or movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15.3, 573–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohammad, Jan & Karimi, Simin. 1992. Light verbs are taking over: Complex verbs in Persian. The Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL), 195–212.Google Scholar
Monachesi, Paola. 1998. Italian restructuring verbs: A lexical analysis. In Hinrichs, Erhard W., Kathol, Andreas & Nakazawa, Tsuneko (eds.), Complex predicates in nonderivational syntax (Syntax and Semantics 30), 313–368. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2002. Complex predicates: Verbal complexes, resultative constructions, and particle verbs in German (Studies in Constraint-based Lexicalism 13). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. http://hpsg.fu-berlin.de/~stefan/Pub/complex.html (29 October 2009).Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2003. The morphology of German particle verbs: Solving the bracketing paradox. Journal of Linguistics 39.2, 275–325. http://hpsg.fu-berlin.de/~stefan/Pub/paradox.html (29 October 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2005. Zur Analyse der deutschen Satzstruktur. Linguistische Berichte 201, 3–39. http://hpsg.fu-berlin.de/~stefan/Pub/satz-lb.html (29 October 2009).Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2006. Phrasal or lexical constructions? Language 82(4), 850–883. http://hpsg.fu-berlin.de/~stefan/Pub/phrasal.html (29 October 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2007a. The Grammix CD Rom: A Software Collection for Developing Typed Feature Structure Grammars. In King, Tracy Holloway & Bender, Emily M. (eds.), Grammar engineering across frameworks 2007 (Studies in Computational Linguistics ONLINE). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2007b. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar: Eine Einführung (Stauffenburg Einführungen 17), 1st edn.Tübingen: Stauffenburg. http://hpsg.fu-berlin.de/~stefan/Pub/hpsg-lehrbuch.html (29 October 2009).Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan (ed.). 2009a. 16th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, University of Göttingen, Germany. Stanford, CA, CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2009b. Towards an HPSG analysis of Maltese. In Comrie, Bernard, Fabri, Ray, Hume, Beth, Mifsud, Manwel, Stolz, Thomas & Vanhove, Martine (eds.), Introducing Maltese linguistics: 1st International Conference on Maltese Linguistics (Bremen/Germany, 18–20 October 2007; Studies in Language Companion Series 113), 83–112, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. http://hpsg.fu-berlin.de/~stefan/Pub/maltese-sketch.html (18 October 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan. In preparation. Grammatiktheorie: Von der Transformationsgrammatik zur beschränkungsbasierten Grammatik (Stauffenburg Einführungen). Tübingen: Stauffenburg. http://hpsg.fu-berlin.de/~stefan/Pub/grammatiktheorie.html (14 November 2009).Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan & Lipenkova, Janna. 2009. Serial verb constructions in Mandarin Chinese. In Müller (2009a), 213–233. http://hpsg.fu-berlin.de/~stefan/Pub/chinese-svc.html (30 October 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan & Samvelian, Pollet. In preparation. Persian in Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar.Google Scholar
Nerbonne, John, Netter, Klaus & Pollard, Carl J. (eds.). 1994. German in Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (CSLI Lecture Notes 46). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Sag, Ivan A. & Wasow, Thomas. 1994. Idioms. Language 70.3, 491–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orgun, Cemil Orhan. 1996. Sign-based morphology and phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Penn, Gerald. 2004. Balancing clarity and efficiency in Typed Feature Logic through delaying. 42nd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL '04), main volume, 239–246. Barcelona.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Carl J. 1996. On head non-movement. In Bunt, Harry & Horck, Arthur van (eds.), Discontinuous constituency (Natural Language Processing 6), 279–305. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. [Revised version of 1990 ms.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Carl J. & Sag, Ivan A.. 1987. Information-based syntax and semantics (CSLI Lecture Notes 13). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl J. & Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (Studies in Contemporary Linguistics). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1977. Word order universals and grammatical relations. In Cole, Peter & Sadock, Jerrold M. (eds.), Grammatical relations (Syntax and Semantics 8), 249–277. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Richter, Frank & Sailer, Manfred. 2009. Phraseological clauses as constructions in HPSG. In Müller (2009a), 297–317.Google Scholar
Riehemann, Susanne Z. 1998. Type-based derivational morphology. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2, 49–77. http://doors.stanford.edu/~sr/morphology.ps (5 April 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 1997. English relative clause constructions. Journal of Linguistics 33.2, 431–484. http://lingo.stanford.edu/sag/papers/rel-pap.pdf (30 May 2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2007a. Remarks on locality. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), 14th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 394–414. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/8/ (29 July 2007).Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2007b. Sign-based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. Ms., Stanford University. http://lingo.stanford.edu/sag/papers/theo-syno.pdf (23 October 2007).Google Scholar
Samvelian, Pollet. 2007. A (phrasal) affix analysis of the Persian Ezafe. Journal of Linguistics 43, 605–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Grundfragen der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. [2nd edn. 1967]Google Scholar
Stiebels, Barbara. 1996. Lexikalische Argumente und Adjunkte: Zum semantischen Beitrag verbaler Präfixe und Partikeln (Studia Grammatica 39). Berlin: Akademie.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiebels, Barbara & Wunderlich, Dieter. 1994. Morphology feeds syntax: The case of particle verbs. Linguistics 32.6, 913–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 1991. A paradigm-based theory of morphosemantic mismatches. Language 67.4, 675–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2005. Beyond formalities: The case of language acquisition. The Linguistic Review 22, 183–197. http://www.eva.mpg.de/psycho/pdf/Publications_2005_PDF/Beyond_formalities_05.pdf (24 September 2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2006a. Construction Grammar for kids. Constructions, special volume 1. http://www.constructions-online.de/articles/specvol1/689 (11 January 2009).Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2006b. Konstruktionsgrammatik und früher Erstspracherwerb. In Fischer, Kerstin & Stefanowitsch, Anatol (eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik: Von der Anwendung zur Theorie (Stauffenburg Linguistik 40), 19–37. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Uszkoreit, Hans. 1987. Word order and constituent structure in German (CSLI Lecture Notes 8). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Vahedi-Langrudi, Mohammad Mahdi. 1996. The syntax, semantics and argument structure of complex predicates in Modern Farsi. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Wiese, Richard. 1992. Prosodic phonology and its role in the processing of written language. In Görz, Günther (ed.), Konvens 92.1: Konferenz ‘Verarbeitung natürlicher Sprache’. Nürnberg 7.–9. Oktober 1992 (Informatik aktuell), 139–148. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiese, Richard. 1996. Phrasal compounds and the theory of word syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 27.1, 183–193.Google Scholar
Zeller, Jochen. 1999. Particle verbs, local domains, and a theory of lexical licensing. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Frankfurt.Google Scholar