Symmetry Breaking in Syntax and the Lexicon

| Goethe University Frankfurt
HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027255990 | EUR 105.00 | USD 158.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027270122 | EUR 105.00 | USD 158.00
 
This book is a research monograph that explores the implications of the strongest minimalist thesis from an antisymmetric perspective. Three empirical domains are investigated: nominal root compounds in German and English, nominal gerunds in English and their German counterparts, and small clauses in Russian and English. A point of symmetry that has the potential of stalling the derivation emerges in the derivation of all of these constructions. Building on certain assumptions on how Merge works, this book shows that the points of symmetry can all be resolved in the same way; despite the fact that the three empirical domains under investigation are standardly derived from distinct structural configurations, such as head-head merger in the case of root compounds, head-phrase merger as it arises from standard complementation/predication structures for nominal gerunds, and phrase-phrase merger in small clauses. This book is of interest to all researchers working on syntax and its interfaces.
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 216]  2014.  xi, 304 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
ix–x
List of abbreviations
xi–xii
Chapter 1. Introduction
1–20
Chapter 2. Nominal root compounds
21–98
Chapter 3. The nominalizing of nominalizations
99–170
Chapter 4. Small clauses (and Verb-particle constructions)
171–250
Chapter 5. Theoretical implications
251–286
Chapter 6. Conclusion
287–290
References
291–302
Index
303–304
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Nóbrega, Vitor A. & Phoevos Panagiotidis
2020. Headedness and exocentric compounding. Word Structure 13:2  pp. 211 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 november 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

References

References

Aarts, B.
1992 Small Clauses in English. The Non-verbal Types . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Abels, K.
2003Successive-cyclicity, Anti-locality and Adposition Stranding. PhD dissertation, UConn.Google Scholar
2007Towards a restrictive theory of (remnant) movement. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 7: 53–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009Some implications of improper movement for cartography. In Alternatives to Cartography , Jeroen van Craenenbroeck (ed.), 325–259. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Abney, S. P.
1987The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Adger, D.
2003 Core Syntax . Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2010A minimalist theory of feature structure. In Features. Perspectives on a Key Notion in Linguistics , A. Kibort & G. Corbett (eds), 185–218. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A.
2001 Functional Structure in Nominals: Nominalization and Ergativity . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008On the role of syntactic locality in morphological processes: The case of (Greek) derived nominals. In Quantification, Definiteness and Nominalization , A. Giannakidou & M. Rathert (eds), 253–280. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Haegeman, L. & Stavrou, M.
2007 Noun Phrases in the Generative Perspective . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E. & Schäfer, F.
2009PP licensing in nominalizations. In Proceedings of NELS 38, A. Schardl, M. Walkow & M. Abdurrahman (eds), 39–52. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Alexidaou, A., Iordăchioaia, G. & Soare, E.
2010Plural marking in argument supporting nominalizations. In Layers of Aspect , P. Cabredo-Hofherr & B. Laca (eds), 1–22. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Allen, M. R.
1978Morphological Investigations. PhD dissertation, UConn.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, E.
2009Domains for idioms. Handout from talk at Roots Workshop. University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Baker, M.
1988 Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing . Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1995Lexical and nonlexical noun incorporaion. In Lexical Knowledge in the Organization of Language , U. Egli, P. Pause & C. Schwarze (eds), 3–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003On the loci of agreement: Inversion constructions in Mapudungun. In Proceedings from NELS 33, M. Kadowaski & S. Kawahara (eds), 25–49. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
2008The macroparameter in a microparametric world. In The Limits of Syntactic Variation , T. Biberauer (ed.). 351–374. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009Is head movement still needed for incorporation? Lingua 119: 148–165. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. Aranovich, R. & Golluscio, L.
2005Two types of syntactic incorporation: Noun incorporation in Mapudungun and its typological implications. Language 81: 138–176. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. & Collins, C.
2006Linkers and the internal structure of vP. NLLT 24: 307–354.Google Scholar
Barrie, M.
2006Dynamic Antisymmetry and the Syntax of Noun Incorporation. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
2010on Noun incorporation as symmetry breaking. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 53(3): 273–301. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barrie, M. & Spreng, B.
2009Noun incorporation and the progressive in German. Lingua 119: 374–388. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L.
2004 A Glossary of Morphology . Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Bauke, L.
2009On nominal compounds in German. Ms, UMass.Google Scholar
Bauke, L. & Roeper, T.
. 2012. How phase-based interpretations dictate the typology of nominalizations. In Discourse and grammer , G. Grewendorf & E. Zimmermann (eds). 289–320.
de Belder, M.
2011Roots and Affixes: Eliminating Lexical Categories from Syntax. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University/Uil-OTS & HUBrussel/CRISSP.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. & Chomsky, N.
2011The biolinguistic program: the current state of its development. In The Biolinguistic Enterprise , C. Boeckx & A. M. DiSciullo (eds), 19–41. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bieberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. & Sheehan, M.
2009 Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory . Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bisetto, A.
2010Recursiveness in Italian compounds. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 7(1): 14–35.Google Scholar
Blume, K.
2004 Nominalisierte Infinitive . Eine empirisch basierte Studie zum Deutschen . Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C.
2006 Linguistic Minimalism . Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2007 Understanding Minimalist Syntax: Lessons from Locality in Long-Distance Dependencies . Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2008a Bare Syntax . Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2008bI-semantics. Handout from talk at Biosemantics Workshop at Leiden University.
2009On the locus of asymmetry in UG. Catalan journal of linguistics 8: 41–53.Google Scholar
2010aWhat principles & parameters got wrong. Ms, ICREA/UAB.Google Scholar
2010bDefeating lexicocentrism. Ms, ICREA/UAB.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. & Stjepanović, S.
2001Head-ing toward PF. LI 32(2): 345–355.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. & Grohmann, K.
2007Putting phases into perspective. Syntax 10: 204–222. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C. & Uriagereka, J.
2007Minimalism. In Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces , G. Ramchand & C. Reiss (eds), 541–573. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Booij, G.
1992Compounding in Dutch. Rivista di Linguistica 4: 37–59.Google Scholar
Borer, H.
1984 Parametric Syntax . Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1999The formation, the forming and the form of nominals. Handout from talk at Round Table on Event Struture. Simon Fraser University, Vancouver.Google Scholar
2003Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations. In The Nature of Explanation in Linguistic Theory , J. Moore & M. Polinsky (eds), 31–67. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
2005a In Name Only. Structuring Sense , Vol. I. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005b The Normal Course of Events. Structuring Sense , Vol. II. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009Roots and categories. Handout from talk at 19th Colloquium on Generative Grammar. University of the Basque country, Vitoria.Google Scholar
Bošković, Z.
2005On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP. Studia Linguistica 59: 589–644. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal theory. LI 38: 589–644.Google Scholar
Branigan, P.
2005The Phase theoretic bass for subject-aux inversion. Ms, Memorial University.Google Scholar
Cable, S.
2010 The Grammar of Q: Q-particles, Wh-Movement and Pied-piping . Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Chametzky, R.
2000 Phrase Structure . Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G.
1998aReference to kinds across languages. Natural language semantics 6(4): 339–405. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998bPlurality of mass nouns and the notion of ‘semantic parameter’. In Events in Grammar , S. Rothstein (ed.), 53–103. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
1955 [1975] The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory . New York NY: Plenum.Google Scholar
1957 Syntactic Structures . The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
1959Review of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Language 35: 26–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1964 Current Issues in Linguistic Theory . The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
1965 Aspects of a Theory of Syntax . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1966 Topics in the Theory of Generative Grammar . The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
1970Remarks on nominalization. In Readings in Transformational Grammar , J. Roderick & P. Rosenbaum (eds), 184–221. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
1981 Lectures on Government and Binding . Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1982 Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1986a Barriers . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1986b Knowledge of Language . New York, NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
1991On formalization and formal linguistics. NLLT 8: 134–147.Google Scholar
1995a The Minimalist Program . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1995bBare phrase structure. In Government and Binding and the Minimalist Program , G. Webelhuth (ed.), 385–439. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2000Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step , R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (eds), 89–115. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2001Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale. A Life in Language , M. Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2004Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and Beyond , A. Belletti (ed.). 104–131. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2005Three factors in language design. LI 36: 1–22.Google Scholar
2007Approaching UG from below. In Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Ssyntax-semantics , U. Sauerland & H. M. Gärtner (eds), 1–30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2008On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory , R. Freidin, C. Otero & M. L. Zubizarreta (eds), 133–166. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33–49. Crossref
Chomsky, N. & Lasnik, H.
1995Principles and parameters theory. In Syntax an International Handbook of Contemporary Research , J. Jacobs, A. van Stechow & T. Vennemann (eds), 506–569. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cinque, G.
1980On extraction from NP in Italian. Journal of Italian Linguistics 5: 47-99.Google Scholar
Citko, B.
2008aSmall clauses reconsidered: Not so small and not all alike. Lingua 118: 261–295. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008bMissing labels. Lingua 118: 907–944. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Collins, C.
2002Eliminating labels. In Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program , S. Epstein & D. Seely (eds). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, J. & de Belder, M.
2011How to merge a root. Ms, CRISSP/HUB/FUSL/KUL & CRISSP/HUB/UiL-OTS/Utrecht.
Cuervo, M. C.
2007Double objects in Spanish as a Second Language: Acquisition of Morphosyntax and Semantics. SSLA 29: 583–615.Google Scholar
Delfitto, D., Fábregas, A. & Melloni, C.
2008Compounding at the interfaces. Ms, University of Verona & CASTL Universitetet i Tromsø.Google Scholar
den Dikken, M.
2006 Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2007aPhase extension. Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction. Theoretical Linguistics 33(1): 1–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007bPhase extension: A reply. Theoretical Linguistics 33(1): 133–163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, M., Meinunger, A. & Wilder, C.
2000Pseudoclefts and ellipsis. Studia Linguistica 54(1): 41–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Di Sciullo, A. M.
2005 Asymmetry in Morphology . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, A. M. & Williams, E.
1987 On the Definition of Word . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, A. M. & Isac, D.
2008aThe asymmetry of merge. Biolinguistics 2(4): 260–290.Google Scholar
2008bMovement chains at the interfaces. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 53(2–3): 181–217. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Donati, C. & Cechetto, C.
2010On labeling: Principle C and Head Movement. Syntax 13(3): 241–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Donati, C.
2006On wh-movement. In L. Cheng&N. Corver (eds.). Wh-movement. Moving on . Cambridge MA: MIT Press. 21–46.Google Scholar
Dowty, D.
1989On the semantic content of the notion of ‘Thematic Role’. In Properties, Types and Meaninigs , Vol II, G. Chirechia, B. Partee & R. Turner (eds), 69–129. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dubinsky, S. & Simango, S.
1996Passsive and stative in Chichewa: Evidence for modular distinctions in grammar. Language 72: 749–781. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duden
2007 6. überarbeitete Auflage . Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Embick, D. & Marantz, A.
2008Architecture and blocking. LI 39(1): 1–53.Google Scholar
Embick, D. & Noyer, R.
2007Distributed mophology and the syntax-mrophology interface. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces , G. Ramchand & C. Reiss, 289–324. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Epstein, S.
1999Un-principled syntax and the derivation of syntactic relations. In Working Minimalism , S. Epstein & N. Hornstein (eds), 317–345. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, S., Groat, E., Kawashima, R. & Kitahara, H.
1998 A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations . Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. & Seely, T.
2002Rule applications as cycles in a level-free syntax. In Explanation and Derivation in the Minimalist Program , S. Epstein & T. Seely (eds), 65–89. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fitch T., Hauser, M. & Chomsky, N.
2005The evolution of the language faculty: Clarifications and implications. Cognition 97: 179–210. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fortuny, J.
2006The Emergence of Order in Syntax. PhD dissertation, UAB.Google Scholar
Fox, D. & Pesetsky, D.
2003Cyclic linearization and the typology of movement. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
2005Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics 31: 1–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frampton, J. & Gutmann, S.
2002Crash-proof syntax. In Explanation and Derivation in the Minimalist Program , S. Epstein & T. Seely (eds), 90–105. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fu, J., Roeper, T. & Borer, H.
2001The VP within process nominals: Evidence from adverbs and the VP anaphor do-so . NLLT 19(3): 549–582.Google Scholar
Gallego, A.
2010 Phase Theory . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011Lexical items and feature bundling. Handout from talk at Workshop on Formal Grammar and Syntactic Variation. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
Gallego, A. & Uriagereka, J.
2007A critique of phase extension with a comparison to phase sliding. Theoretical Linguistics 33(1): 65–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gallmann, P.
1998Case underspecification in Morphology, syntax and the lexicon. In: A. Alexiadou. &C. Wilder. (eds.). Possessors, predicates and movement in the determiner phrase . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 141–176. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giegerich, H.
1999 Lexical Strata in English: Morphological Causes, Phonological Effects . Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004Compound or phrase? English noun-plus-noun constructions and the stress criterion. Journal of Linguistics 8: 1–24.Google Scholar
2009Compounding and lexicalism. In Handbook of Compounding , R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (eds), 178–200. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Grela, S., Snyder, W. & Hiramatsu, K.
2005The production of novel root compounds in children with specific language impairment. Clinical linguistics & phonetics 19(8): 701–715. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grewendorf, G. & Kremers, J.
2009Phases and cycles: Some problems with phase theory. The Linguistic Review 26: 385–430. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, J.
1990 Argument Structure . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grohmann, K.
2003 Prolific Peripheries . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Guimarães, M.
2000In defense of vacuous projections in bare phrase structure. UMDWPL 9: 90–115.Google Scholar
Grosz, P.
2008A different view on ergativity in German nominalizations. Handout from talk at ECO5. UConn.Google Scholar
Haider, H.
1993 Deutsche Syntax generativ . Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
2010 The Syntax of German . Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 Symmetry Breaking in Syntax . Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Hale, K. & Keyser, S.
1992The syntactic character of thematic structure. In Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar , I. Roca (ed.), 107–143. Berlin: Foris.Google Scholar
1993On the argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger , K. Hale & S. Keyser (eds), 53–109. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2002 Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Marantz, A.
1993Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger , K. Hale & S. Keyser (eds), 117–176. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1994Some key features in distributed morphology. MITWPL 21: 275–288.Google Scholar
Harley, H.
1995Subjects Events and Licensing. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
1998You’re having me on: Aspects of have . In La grammaire de la possession , J. Guéron & A. Zribi- Hertz (eds), 195–226. Paris-Nanterre: Université Paris X.Google Scholar
2002Theta theory and minimalism. Handout from talk at Mayfest. University of Maryland.Google Scholar
2004Merge, conflation and head movement. In Proceedings from NELS 34 , K. Moulton & M. Wolf (eds), 239–254. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
2005Bare phrase structure, acategorial roots, one-replacement and unaccusativity. In Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics , Vol. 11, S. Gorbachov & A. Nevins (eds), 59–78. Cambridge MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
2008The morphology of nominalizations and the syntax of vP. In A. Giannakidou & M. Rathert (eds). Quantification, Definiteness and Nominalization , 321–343. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2009Compounding in distributed morphology. In The Oxford Handbook on Compounding , R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (eds). 129–144. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Harley, H. & Noyer, R.
1998aLicensing in the non-lexicalist lexicon: Nominalizations, vocabulary items and the encyclopedia. MITWPL 32: 119–138.Google Scholar
1998bMixed nominalizations, short verb movement and object shift in English. In Proceedings of NELS 28, P. N. Tamanji & K. Kusumoto (eds), 143–157. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
1999Distributed morphology. GLOT 4(4): 3–19.Google Scholar
Harris, J.
1991The exponence of gender in Spanish. LI 22(1): 2–62.Google Scholar
Hauser, M., Chomsky, N. & Fitch, T.
2002The faculty of language: what is it, who has it and how did it evolve? Science 298: 1569–1579. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hazout, I.
1995Action nominalization and the lexicalist hypothesis. NLLT 13(3): 355–404.Google Scholar
Heck, F., Müller, G. & Trommer, J.
2008A phase-based approach to Scandinavian definiteness marking. In Proceedings of WCCFL 26 , C. B. Chang & H. J. Haynie (eds), 226–233. Somerville MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Herbeck, P.
. In preparation. The (non-)Existence of Empty Categories. PhD Dissertation. University of Wuppertal.
Heim, I. & Kratzer, A.
1998 Semantics in Generative Grammar . Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heycock, C. & Kroch, A.
1999Pseudocleft conectedness: Implications for the LF interface level. LI 30: 365–398.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J.
1986Linguistic theory and Davidson’s program. In Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation , E. Lepore (ed.), 29–48. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hicks, G.
2009 The Derivation of Anaphoric Relations . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hinzen, W.
2007 An Essay on Naming and Truth . Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, K.
2005Dimensions of Symmetry in Syntax: Agreement and Clausal Architecture. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Hollebrandse, B., Hobbs, K., de Villiers, J. & Roeper, T.
2008Second order embedding and second order false belief. In Language Acquisition and Development: Proceedings of GALA 2007 , A. Gavano & M. J. Freitas (eds), 270–280. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A.
1999Remarks on Holmberg’s generalization. Studia Linguistica 53: 1–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Parameters in minimalist theory: The case of Scandinavian. Theoretical Linguistics 36(1): 1–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Al-Horais, N.
2007The categorial status of the small clause node: A minimalist approach. NDWPL 13: 96–108.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N.
2001 Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal . Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2009 Theory of Syntax . Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. & Nunes, J.
2008Adjunction, labeling and bare phrase structure. Biolinguistics 2(1): 57–86.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N., Nunes, J. & Grohman, K.
2006 Understanding Minimalism . Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
van Hout, A. & Roeper, T.
1998Events and aspectual structure in derivational morphology. MITWPL 32: 175–200.Google Scholar
Huang, S. F.
1998Chinese as a headless language in compounding morphology. In New Approaches to Chinese Word Formation , J. L. Packard (ed.), 261–283. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Iacobini, C. & Masini, F.
2007The emergence of verb-particle constructions in Italian: Locative and actional meanings. Morphology 16: 155–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Iordăchioaia, G. & Soare, E.
2008Two kinds of event plurals: Evidence from Romanian nominalizations. In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics: Papers from CSSP , O. Bonami & P. Cabredo-Hofherr (eds), 193–217. <http://​www​.cssp​.cnrs​.fr​/eiss6​/index​_en​.html>Google Scholar
Johns, A.
2009Additional facts about noun incorporation (in Inuktitut). Lingua 119: 185–198. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K.
1991Object positions. NLLT 9(4): 577–636.Google Scholar
Julien, M.
2002 Syntactic Heads and Word Formation . Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Kayne, R.
1984 Connectedness and Binary Branching . Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1994 The Antisymmetry of Syntax . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2009Antisymmetry and the lexicon. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 8: 1–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Why are there no directionality parameters? Ms, NYU.Google Scholar
Keyser, S. & Roeper, T.
1992Re: The abstract clitic hypothesis. LI 23: 89–125.Google Scholar
Koopman, H. & Szabolsci, A.
2000 Verbal Complexes . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A.
1996Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon , J. Rooryck & L. Zaring (eds), 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Larson, R. & Segal, G.
1995 Knowledge of Meaning: An Introduction to Semantic Theory . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. & Saito, M.
1984On the nature of proper government. LI 15: 235–289.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, D.
1988Language Acquisition and the Form of the Grammar. PhD Dissertation, UMass Amherst.Google Scholar
Legate, J. A.
2003Some interface properties of the phase. LI 34: 506–516.Google Scholar
Liceras, J. M., Días, L. & Salomaa-Robertson, T.
2002The compounding parameter and the word-marker hypothesis: Accounting for adult L2 acquisition of Spanish N – N compounds. In The Acquisition of Spanish Morphosyntax , A. T. Pérez-Leroux & J. M. Liceras (eds), 209–237. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lieber, R.
2005English word-formation processes: observations, issues and thoughts on future research. In Handbook of Word-formation , R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (eds), 375–427. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G.
1996The syntax of N-raising: A minimalist theory. OTS Working Papers in Linguistics . 1–56.Google Scholar
2001aThe structure of DPs: Some principles, parameters and problems. In The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory , M. Baltin & C. Collins (eds), 562–604. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001bFormal syntax, diachronic minimalism, and etymology: The history of French chez. LI 32(2): 275–302.Google Scholar
Marantz, A.
1997No escape from syntax. In Proceedings from the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium , A. Dimitriadis, L. Siegel, C. Surek-Clark & A. Wiliams (eds), 201–225. Philadelphia, PA: PWPL.Google Scholar
2001Words. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
2007Phases and words. Ms, NYU.Google Scholar
Marchand, H.
1969 The Categories and Types of Present-day English Word-formation . München: Beck.Google Scholar
Marušič, F. L.
2005On Non-simultaneous Phases. PhD Dissertation, Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
Massam, D.
2001Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. NLLT 19: 153–197.Google Scholar
2009Existential incorporation constructions. Lingua 119: 166–184. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mateu, J.
2002Argument structure. Relational construal at the syntax-semantics interface. Dissertation. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Mateu, J.. & Rigau, G.
2010Verb particle constructions in Romance: a lexical-syntactic account. Probus 22: 241–269.Google Scholar
Matushansky, O.
2005Going through a phase. In Perspectives on phases , M. McGinnis & N. Richards (eds), 157–181. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2006Head movement in linguistic theory. LI 37(1): 69–109.Google Scholar
2007a What’s in a name . Handout from talk at PALMYR: Paris.Google Scholar
2007bPredication and escape hatches in phase extension theory. Theoretical Linguistics 33(1): 93–104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
May, R.
1985 Logical Form . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Miyoshi, N.
1999Compounds and complex predicates: Japanese evidence for a ‘global’ parameter. In Proceedings from the Boston Conference on Language Development 23 , A. Greenhill, H. Littlefield & C. Tano (eds), 453–461. Somerville MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Moro, A.
1995Topics in small clauses with predicative nominals. In Small Clauses , A. Cardinaletti & M. T. Guasti (eds), 109–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1997 The Raising of Predicates: Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure . Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 Dynamic Antisymmetry . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2007 Some Notes on Unstable Structures . Ms, Vita Salute San Rafaelle University.Google Scholar
2009Rethinking symmetry: A note on labeling and the EPP. Snippets 19: 17–18.Google Scholar
Müller, G.
1996A constraint on remnant movement. NLLT 14: 355–407.Google Scholar
2004Verb-second as vP-first. Journal of comparative Germanic linguistics 7: 179–234. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010On deriving CED effects from the PIC. LI 41(1): 35–82.Google Scholar
Müller, G. & Heck, F.
2008Derivational optimization of wh-movement. Linguistic Analysis 33: 97–148.Google Scholar
Mukai, M.
2004Headedness of compound words in a minimalist framework. Ms, University of Durham.Google Scholar
Narita, H.
2009Full interpretation of optimal labeling. Biolinguistics 3(2–3): 213–254.Google Scholar
2011Phasing-in full interpretation. Ms, Harvard.Google Scholar
Nilsen, O.
2003Eliminating Positions: Syntax and Semantics of Sentence Modification. PhD dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Nübling, D. & Szczepaniak, R.
2009Religion+s+freiheit, Stabilität+s+pakt und Subjekt+s+ pronomen: Fugenelemente als Marker phonologischer Wortgrenzen. In Studien zur Fremdwortbildung , P.O. Müller (ed.), 195–222. Zürich: Georg Olms.Google Scholar
2010Was erklärt die Diachronie für die Synchronie der deutschen Gegenwartssprache? Am Beispiel schwankender Fugenelemente. In Perspektiven der germanistischen Sprachgeschichtsforschung , H. U. Schmid (ed.), 205–224. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011Merkmal(s?)analyse, Seminar(s?)arbeit und Essen(s?)ausgabe: Zweifelsfälle der Verfugung als Indikatoren für sprachlichen Wandel. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 30: 45–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, J.
2004Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ott, D.
2008Notes on noun ph (r)ases. Ms, Harvard.Google Scholar
Parrot, J.
2001A morphological theory of head movement. Ms, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Parsons, T.
1990 Events in the Semantics of English . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, A.
2001On the Nature of Intra-clausal Relations: A Study of Copular Sentences in Russian and Italian. PhD dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. & Torrego, E.
2006Probes, goals, and the nature of syntactic categories. In Proceedings of the Seventh Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics , Y. Otsu (ed.), 25–60. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
2007The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Phrasal and Clausal Architecture , S. Karimi, V. Samiian & W. K. Wilkins (eds), 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pietroski, P.
2002Function and concatenation. In Logical Form , G. Preyer & G. Peters (eds), 91–117. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2005 Events and Semantic Interpretation . Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2006Interpreting concatenation and concatenates. Philosophical Issues 16: 221–245. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pietroski, P. & Hornstein, N.
2009Basic operations. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 8: 113–139.Google Scholar
Poletto, C. & Pollock, Y. I.
2004On the left periphery of some Romance wh-questions. In The Structure of IP and CP , L. Rizzi (ed.), 251–269. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Pollock, Y. I.
2006Subject clitics and complement inversion. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax , Vol. IV., M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (eds), 601–659. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, J.
1995The generative lexicon. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L.
2000Deriving adversity. In Proceedings of WCCFL 19 , R. Billery & B. D. Lillehaugen (eds), 399–410. Somerville MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
2002Introducing Arguments. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Radford, A.
1997 Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English: A Minimalist Approach . Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English . Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ralli, A.
1992Compounding in modern Greek. Rivista di Linguistica 4(1): 143–174.Google Scholar
2008Compound markers and parametric variation. Language Typology and Universals 61(1): 19–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, G.
2008 Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First-phase Syntax . Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rauh, G.
1997aEnglische Präpositionen zwischen lexikalischen und funktionalen Kategorien. In Lexikalische Kategorien und Merkmale , E. Löbel & G. Rauh (eds), 125–167. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
1997bLokale Präpositionen und referentielle Argumente. Linguistische Berichte 171: 415–442.Google Scholar
1999Adverb oder Präposition? Von der Notwendigkeit einer Abgrenzung von Wortarten und grammatischen Kategorien und der Gefahr einer terminologischen Falle. In Florilegium Linguisticum. Festschrift für Wolfgang P. Schmid zum 70. Geburtstag , E. Eggers, J. Becker, J. Udolph & D. Weber (eds), 367–392. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2002Prepositions, features and projections. In Perspectives on Prepositions , H. Cuyckens & P. Radden (eds), 3–23. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
2010 Syntatic Categories: Their Identification and Description in Linguistic Theories . Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Richards, M. D.
2007On feature inheritance: And argument from the phase impenetrability condition. LI 38: 563–572.Google Scholar
2010Deriving the edge: What’s in a phase? Syntax 14(1): 75–95.Google Scholar
2012No phase is an island (?): An attempt to constrain internal ‘free merge’ via the edge feature. Handout from talk at syntax seminar. University of Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Ritter, E.
1991Two functional categories in noun phrases: evidence from modern Hebrew. In Perspectives on Phrase Structure , S. Rothstein (ed.), 37–62. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L.
1997The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar , L. Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I.
2005 Principles and Parameters in a VSO Language: A Case Study in Welsh . Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation and Defective Goals . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011aHead movement and the minimalist program. In The Oxford Handbook of Minimalism , C. Boeckx (ed.), 195–219. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2011bParametric hierarchies: some observations. Handout from talk at Workshop on Formal Grammar and Syntactic Variation. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
Roeper, T.
1987Implicit arguments and the head-complement relation. LI 18: 267–310.Google Scholar
1993Explicit syntax in the lexicon: The representation of nominalizations. In Semantics and the Lexicon , J. Pustejovsky (ed.), 185–220. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999Leftward movement in morphology. MITWPL 34: 35–66.Google Scholar
2005Chomsky’s Remarks and the transformationalist hypothesis. In Handbook of Word-formation , R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (eds), 125–144. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 The Prism of Grammar . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. In preparation. Vacate Phase.
Roeper, T. & Siegel, M.
1978A lexical transformation for verbal compounds. LI 9: 199–260.Google Scholar
Roeper, T. & van Hout, A.
1999The impact of nominalization on passive, -able and middle: Burzio’s generalization and feature-movement in the lexicon. MITWPL 35:185–211.Google Scholar
Roeper, T., Snyder, W. & Hiramatsu, K.
2002Learnability in a minimalist framework: Root compounds, merger and the syntax-morphology interface. In The Process of Language Acquisition , I. Lasser (ed.), 25–35. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Roeper, T. & Snyder, W.
2005Language learnability and the forms of recursion. In UG and External Systems , A. M. Di Sciullo (ed.), 155–169. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roeper, T. & Hollebrandse, B.
. Forthcoming. Recursion and propositional exclusivity. Ms. UMass Amherst & University of Groningen.
Rothstein, S.
2000 Predicates and their Subjects . Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Roodenburg, J.
2006The role of number within nominal arguments. Handout from talk at 36th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. Rutgers University, NJ.
Samuels, B.
2008The Structure of Phonological Theory. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Sauerland, U. & Elbourne, P.
2002Total reconstruction, PF-movement and derivational order. LI 33: 283–319.Google Scholar
Scalise, S.
1986 Generative Morphology . Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992Compounding in Italian. Rivista di Linguistica 4(1): 175–200.Google Scholar
Scalise, S. & Guevara, E.
2005The lexicalist approach to word-formation and the notion of the lexicon. In Handbook of Word-formation , R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (eds), 147–187. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schein, B.
1993 Plurals and Events . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schorlemmer, E. & Temmermann, T.
2011Head movement as a PF-phenomenon. Evidence from identity under ellipsis. Handout from talk at WCCFL 29. University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Selkirk, L.
1982 The Syntax of Words . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sheehan, M. & Hinzen, W.
2011PF-parameters and clausal/nominal denotation. Handout from talk at Workshop on Formal Grammar and Syntactic Variation. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
Sichel, I.
2009New evidence for the structural realization of the implicit external argument in nominalizations. LI 40(4): 712–723.Google Scholar
2010Towards a typology of control in DP. In Movement Theory of Control , M. Polinski & N. Hornstein (eds), 245–266. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, L.
1997Gerundive nominals and the role of aspect. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics , J. Austin & A. Lawson (eds), 170–179. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R.
1999The complex predicate/N – N compounding relation in L2 acquisition. In Proceedings from the Boston Conference on Language Development 23, A. Greenhill, H. Littlefield & C. Tano (eds), 642–653. Somerville MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Snyder, W.
1995Language Acquisition and Language Variation: The Role of Morphology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
2001On the nature of syntactic variation: Evidence from complex predicates and word-formation. Language 77: 324–342. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, W. & Chen, D.
1997The syntax-morphology interface in the acquisition of French and English. In K Kusumoto (ed.). Proceedings of NELS 27 . Amherst MA: GSLA.Google Scholar
Snyder, W. & Stromswold, K.
1997The structure and acquisition of English dative constructions. LI 28: 281–317.Google Scholar
Spencer, A.
1991 Morphological Theory: An Introduction to Word Structure in Generative Grammar . Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stabler, E.
1998Acquiring languages without movement. Syntax 1(1): 72–97. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Starke, M.
2010Nanosyntax: A short primer to a new approach to language. Nordlyd 36(1): 1–6.Google Scholar
Stroik, T.
2009 Locality in Minimalist Syntax . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, P.
2003Limits on P: Filling in holes vs. falling in holes . Nordlyd 31(2): 431–445.Google Scholar
2004On the edge. In Peripheries: Syntactic Edges and their Effects , D. Adger, C. de Cat & G. Tsoulas (eds). 261–287. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Sugisaki, K. & Isobe, M.
2000Resultative result from the compounding parameter: On the acquisitional correlation between resultatives and N – N compounds in Japanese. In Proceedings of WCCFL 19, R. Billery & B. D. Lillehaugen (eds), 493–506. Somerville MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Talmy, L.
2000 Towards a Cognitive Semantics . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Takano, Y.
2000Illicit remnant movement. LI 31: 141–156.Google Scholar
Travis, L.
1984Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J.
1998 Rhyme and Reason . Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1999Multiple spell-out. In Working Minimalism , S. Epstein & N. Hornstein (eds), 251–282. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2008 Syntactic Anchors . Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vincente, L.
2007The Syntax of Heads and Phrases. A Study of Verb (Phrase) Fronting. PhD dissertation, Unversity of Leiden.Google Scholar
Wassow, T.
1977Transformations and the lexicon. In Formal Syntax , P. Culicover; T. Wassow & A. Akmajian (eds), 327–360. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wiese, R.
1996The phonology of German. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, E.
1980Predication. LI 11: 203–238.Google Scholar
1981Argument structure and morphology. The Linguistic Review 1: 81–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zeller, J.
2001 Particle Verbs and Local Domains . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, N.
2007Root merger in Chinese compounds. Studia Linguistica 61(2): 170–184. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwarts, J.
1992 X’-syntax – X’-semantics. The interpretation of functional and lexical heads . Utrecht: LEd.Google Scholar
Subjects
BIC Subject: CFK – Grammar, syntax
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2014011671 | Marc record