Endocentric Structuring of Projection-free Syntax

| Nihon University
HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027257017 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027269621 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
Endocentric Structuring of Projection-free Syntax puts forward a novel theory of syntax that rigidly adheres to the principle of Minimal Computation, in which a number of traditional but extraneous stipulations such as referential indices and representational labels/projections are eliminated. It specifically articulates the overarching hypothesis that every syntactic object is composed by recursive, phase-by-phase embedding of the endocentric structure {H, α}, where H is a head lexical item and α is another syntactic object (order irrelevant). The proposed mechanism achieves both theory-internal simplicity and broad empirical coverage at the same time, advancing a radically reduced conception of endocentricty/headedness while deriving a number of empirically grounded constraints on human language.
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 218]  2014.  xii, 268 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
List of abbreviations
ix
Acknowledgments
xi–xii
1. Preface
1–5
2. Bare phrase structure and cyclic derivation by phase, in Light of Minimal Computation
7–63
3. Minimal head detection in projection-free syntax
65–139
4. Cyclic Spell-Out of projection-free syntax
141–190
5. Full Interpretation all the way through
191–225
6. Conclusion
227–231
Appendix: List of propositions
233–240
References
241–258
Author index
259–262
Subject index
263–268
“This fascinating inquiry covers a wide range of problems, many of which have received intensive study, others that open new directions. It proceeds with careful and perceptive analysis and provides original and challenging solutions and new ideas. It is a very welcome contribution that is sure to be deservedly influential.”
“Narita makes a bold proposal to derive the endocentric properties of natural language sentence structure from a theory that is truly exemplary of the spirit of minimalism. A must-read for anyone wishing to keep abreast of the latest developments in the art of doing theoretical syntax.”
“Hiroki Narita is one of the most promising theoretical syntacticians in younger generations, and Endocentric Structuring of Projection-free Syntax eloquently tells us why he should be so described. Along the lines of Chomsky’s most recent ideas of divorcing projection/labeling from the principles of construction of linguistic expressions, the book investigates in detail various essential properties of structure-building in human language, and makes a number of stimulating proposals within the projection-free system of syntax in conjunction with the law of minimal computation. Quite an impressive piece of work.”
Endocentric Structuring of Projection-free Syntax is an example of theoretical syntax at its best. Narita pushes the limits of our understanding of labeling and merge, shedding light on core aspects of the human language faculty. This book demonstrates the power of minimalist considerations.”
References

References

Abels, Klaus
2001Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition-stranding. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Abels, Klaus & Neeleman, Ad
2009Universal 20 without the LCA. In Merging Features: Computation, Interpretation and Acquisition, Josep M. Brucart, Anna Gavarró, & Jaume Solà (eds), 60–80. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Abney, Steven Paul
1987The noun phrase in its sentential aspect. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Ackema, Peter & Neeleman, Ad
2002Effects of short-term storage in processing rightward movement. In Storage and Computation in the Langauge Faculty: Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, Sieb Nooteboom, Fred Weerman, & Frank Wijnen (eds), 219–256. Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Agbayani, Brian, Golston, Chris, & Ishii, Toru
2012Prosodic scrambling. In Proceedings of the 5th Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics Conference (FAJL5), Matthew A. Tucker, Anie Thompson, Oliver Northrup, & Ryan Benett (eds), 15–24. MITWPL.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Anagnostopoulou, Elena
2001The subject-in-situ generalization and the role of case in driving computations. Linguistic Inquiry 32(2): 193–231. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alrenga, Peter
2005A sentential subject asymmetry in English and its implications for complement selection. Syntax 8: 175–207. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Asbury, Anna
2008The Morphosyntax of Case and Adpositions. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C.
1988Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1996The Polysynthesis Parameter. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2003Lexical Categories: Verbs Nouns and Adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barwise, Jon & Cooper, Robin
1981Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–209. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Belletti, Adriana
2001‘Inversion’ as focalization. In Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, Aafke Hulk & Jean-Yves Pollock (eds), 60–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Berwick, Robert C., Pietroski, Paul, Yankama, Beracah, & Chomsky, Noam
2011Poverty of the stimulus revisited. Cognitive Science 35: 1207–1242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
den Besten, Hans & Webelhuth, Gert
1990Stranding. In Scrambling and Barriers, Günther Grewendorfand & Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds), 77–92. New York: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bever, Thomas G. & Poeppel, David
2010Analysis by synthesis: A (re-)emerging program of research for language and vision. Biolinguistics 4(2–3): 174–200.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, Holmberg, Anders, & Roberts, Ian
2008Structure and linearization in disharmonic word orders. In Proceedings of WCCFL26, Somerville, MA., 96–104. Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Bittner, Maria & Hale, Ken
1996aThe structural determination of Case and agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 1–68.Google Scholar
1996bErgativity: Toward a theory of a heterogeneous class. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 531–604.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard
1933Language. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David
1995Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inflection. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David & Brown, S.
1997Inter-arboreal operations: Head-movement and the extension requirement. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 345–356.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric
2003Islands and Chains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008aBare Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2008bA note on object EPP. ms. Harvard University.
2008cUnderstanding Minimalist Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2009On the locus of asymmetry in UG. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 8: 41–53.Google Scholar
2010aDefeating lexicocentrism. ms. ICREA/UAB. http://​ling​.auf​.net​/lingBuzz​/ 001130.
2010bA tale of two minimalisms: Reflections on the plausibility of crash-proof syntax, and its free-merge alternative. In Exploring Crash-proof Grammars, Michael Putnam (ed), 105–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011Approaching parameters from below. In The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty, Anna Maria Di Sciullo & Cedric Boeckx (eds), 205–221. Cambridge, MA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2012Phases beyond explanatory adequacy. In Phases: Developing the Framework, Ángel J. Gallego (ed), 45–66. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2014Elementary Syntactic Structures: Prospects of a Feature-free Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric & Grohmann, Kleanthes K.
2007Putting phases into perspective. Syntax 10: 204–222. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric & Stjepanović, Sandra
2001Head-ing toward PF. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 345–355. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric & Uriagereka, Juan
2007Minimalism. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds), 541–573. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit
2005Structuring Sense, Volume I: In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Borgonovo, Claudia & Neeleman, Ad
2000Transparent Adjuncts. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 45: 199–224.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko
1997The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation: An Economy Approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2002aA-movement and the EPP. Syntax 5: 167–218. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002bOn multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 351–383. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of np. Studia Linguistica 59: 1–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 589–644. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008What will you have, DP or NP? In Proceedings of NELS37, Emily Elfner & Martin Walkow (eds). Amherst, MA.: GLSA.Google Scholar
Brame, Michael
1981The general theory of binding and fusion. Linguistic Analysis 7.3: 277–325.Google Scholar
1982The head-selector theory of lexical specifications and the nonexistence of coarse categories. Linguistic Analysis 10.4: 321–325.Google Scholar
Bresnan, John W.
1970On complementizers: Toward a syntactic theory of complement types. Foundations of Language 6: 297–321.Google Scholar
1972Theory of complementation in English syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Brody, Michael
2000Mirror theory: Syntactic representation in perfect syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 29–56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cable, Seth
2007The grammar of Q. PhD dissertation, MIT.
2010The Grammar of Q: Q-Particles, Wh-Movement, and PiedPiping. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caha, Pavel
2009The nanosyntax of case. PhD dissertation, University of Toromsø.
Carnie, Andrew
2002Syntax: A Generative Introduciton. Blackwell.Google Scholar
2008Constituent Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carstens, Vicki
2000Concord in minimalist theory. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 319–355. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003Rethinking complementizer agreement: Agree with a Case checked goal. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 393–412. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cattell, Ray
1976Constraints on movement rules. Language 52: 18–50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo
2007Some preliminary remarks on a ‘weak’ theory of linearization. Annali Online di Ferrara Lettere 1: 1–13. http://​eprints​.unife​.it​/annali​/lettere​/2007vol1​/indice​.htm.Google Scholar
2013Backward dependencies must be short: A unified account of the Final-over-Final and the Right Roof Constraints and its consequences for the syntax/morphology interface. In Challenges to Linearization, Theresa Biberauer & Ian Roberts (eds), 57–92. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo & Donati, Caterina
2010aA head is a head is a head. ms. University of Milan-Bicocca and University of Rome-La Sapienza.
2010bRelabeling heads: A unified accout for relativization structures. ms. University of Milan-Bicocca and University of Rome-La Sapienza. http://​ling​.auf​.net​/lingBuzz​/001014.
Ceplová, Markéta
2001Minimalist islands: Restricting P-features. ms. MIT.
Chametzky, Robert A.
2000Phrase Structure: From GB to Minimalism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro
1998Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6: 339–405. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1955/1975bThe Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. ms. Harvard University, 1955. Published in part in 1975, New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
1957Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. 2nd edition (2002).Google Scholar
1959On certain formal properties of grammars. Information and Control 2: 137–167. Reprinted in R. Duncan Luce, Robert R. Bush, and Eugene Galanter, eds. (1965), Readings in Mathematical Psychology, Volume II, 125–155, New York: John Wiley and Sons. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1965Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1966/2002/2009aCartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought. New York: Harper & Row. 2nd edition with new introduction by James McGilvray, Christchurch NZ: Cybereditions; 3rd edition supplemented with new introduction by James McGilvray, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1968Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovitch. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1970Remarks on nominalization. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds), 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
1973Conditions on transformations. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, Stephen Anderson & Paul Kiparsky (eds), 232–286. New York: Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
1975aReflections on Language. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
1977Essays on Form and Interpretation. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
1980aOn binding. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 1–46.Google Scholar
1980bOn cognitive structures and their development. In Language and Learning: The Debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky, Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini (ed), 35–52. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
1981Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1982Some Concepts and Consequences of the Government and Binding Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1986aBarriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1986bKnowledge of Language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
1987Generative Grammar: Its Basis, Development and Prospects. Studies in English Linguistics and Literature. Kyoto: Kyoto University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
1993A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Ken Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds), 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1994Bare phrase structure. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5: Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT. Reprinted in G. Webelhuth, ed. (1995), Malden: Blackwell, Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program, 383–439.Google Scholar
1995aLanguage and nature. Mind 104. 413: 1–61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995bThe Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000aMinimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels, & Juan Uriagereka (eds), 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000bNew Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed), 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2004Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Adriana Belletti (ed), 104–131. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2005Three factors in the language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007aApproaching UG from below. In Interfaces + Recursion = Language?: Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Semantics, Uli Sauerland & Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds), 1–29. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2007bBiolinguistic explorations: Design, development, evolution. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 15(1): 1–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007cOf minds and language. Biolinguistics 1: 9–27.Google Scholar
2008On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Robert Freidin, Carlos Otero, & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2009bThe mysteries of nature: How deeply hidden? The Journal of Philosophy 16(4): 167–200. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Introduction. In Gengokisoronshu [Foundations of Biolinguistics: Selected Writings], Naoki Fukui (ed), 17–26. Iwanami Shoten.Google Scholar
2013Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Lasnik, Howard
1977Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8(3): 425–504.Google Scholar
1993The theory of principles and parameters. In Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Vol. 1, Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld, & Theo Vennemann (eds), 506–569. Walter de Gruyter. Reprinted in Chomsky (1995b).Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
1993A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 239–298.Google Scholar
1999Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2002Functional Structure in DP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2005Deriving Greenberg’s universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 315–332. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo & Rizzi, Luigi
(eds) 2010Mapping Spatial PPs: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 6. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Chris
2002Eliminating labels. In Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, Samuel David Epstein & T. Daniel Seely (eds), 42–64. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Corver, Norbert
2006Freezing effects. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax II, Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 383–406. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crain, Stephen & Nakayama, Mineharu
1987Structure dependence in grammar formation. Language 63: 522–543. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W.
1982Syntax. New York/London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel
1995Binding, expletives and levels. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 347–354.Google Scholar
Donati, Caterina
2006On wh-head-movement. In Wh-movement: Moving on, Lisa L.-S. Cheng & N. Corver (eds), 21–46. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Embick, David & Marantz, Alec
2008Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 1–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Emonds, Joseph
2009Valuing V features and N features: What adjuncts tell us about case, agreement, and syntax in general. In Merging Features: Computation, Interpretation and Acquisition, Josep M. Brucart, Anna Gavarró, & Jaume Solà (eds), 194–214. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E.
1970Root and structure-preserving transformations. PhD dissertation, MIT.
1976A Transformational Approach to English Syntax: Root, Structure-preserving, and Local Transformations. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Endo, Yoshio
1996Right dislocation. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 29: Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 2, 1–20. MITWPL.Google Scholar
Epstein, Samuel David
1999Un-principled syntax: The derivation of syntactic relations. In Working Minimalism, Samuel David Epstein & Norbert Hornstein (eds), 317–345. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2009. The unification of theta relations: How TRANSFER renders SpecvP a theta marked complement. ms. University of Michigan.
Epstein, Samuel David, Groat, Erich M., Kawashima, Ruriko, & Kitahara, Hisatsugu
1998A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Samuel David, Kitahara, Hisatsugu, & Seely, T. Daniel
2010Uninterpretable features; what are they and what do they do? In Exploring Crash-proof Grammars, Michael Putnam (ed), 124–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Structure building that can’t be! In Ways of Structure Building, Myriam UribeEtxebarria & Vidal Valmala (eds), 253–270. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Samuel David & Seely, T. Daniel
2002Rule applications as cycles in a level-free syntax. In Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, Samuel David Epstein & T. Daniel Seely (eds), 65–89. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005Transformations and Derivations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fiengo, Robert & May, Robert
1994Indices and Identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fitch, W. Tecumseh, Hauser, Marc D., & Chomsky, Noam
2005The evolution of the language faculty: Clarifications and implications. Cognition 97: 179–210. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A.
1975The Language of Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
2008LOT2: The Language of Thought Revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny & Nissenbaum, Jon
1999Extraposition and scope: A case for overt QR. In Proceedings of WCCFL 18, Sonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason D. Haugen, & Peter Norquest (eds), 132–144. Somerville, MA.: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny & Pesetsky, David
2005Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics 31: 1–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frampton, John & Gutmann, Sam
2000Agreement is feature sharing. ms. Northeastern University.
Freidin, Robert & Lasnik, Howard
1981Disjoint refernece and wh-trace. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 39–53.Google Scholar
Fujita, Koji
2007Facing the logical problem of language evolution. English Linguistics 24(1): 78–108. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009A prospect for evolutionary adequacy: Merge and the evolution and development of human language. Biolinguistics 3(2–3): 128–153.Google Scholar
Fukui, Naoki
1986/1995bA theory of category projection and its applications. PhD dissertation, MIT. Published in 1995 with revisions as Theory of Projection in Syntax, Kurosio Publishers and CSLI publications.
1988Deriving the differences between English and Japanese: A case study in parametric syntax. English Linguistics 5: 249–270. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993Parameters and optionality. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 399–420. Reprinted in Fukui (2006).Google Scholar
1995aThe principles-and-parameters approach: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. In Approaches to Language Typology, Masayoshi Shibatani & Theodora Bynon (eds), 327–371. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reprinted in Fukui (2006).Google Scholar
1996On the nature of economy in language. Cognitive Studies (Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society), 3: 51–71. Reprinted in Fukui (2006).Google Scholar
1999An A-over-A perspective on locality. In Linguistics: In Search of the Human Mind: A Festschrift for Kazuko Inoue, Masatake Muraki & Enoch Iwamoto (eds), 109–127. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. Reprinted in Fukui (2006).Google Scholar
2001Phrase structure. In The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds), 374–406. Oxford: Blackwell. Reprinted in Fukui (2006). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Theoretical Comparative Syntax: Studies in Macroparameters. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
2008Gengo-no kihonenzan-o meguru oboegaki [A note concerning basic operations in language]. In Gengokenkyuu-no Genzai: Keishiki-to Imi-no Intaafeisu [The State of the Art in Linguistic Research: The Syntax-Semantics Interface], Yoshiaki Kaneko, Akira Kikuchi, & Daiko Takahashi (eds), 1–21. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
2011Merge and bare phrase structure. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism, Cedric Boeckx (ed), 73–95. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fukui, Naoki & Kasai, Hironobu
2004Spelling-Out scrambling. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 4.1: 109–141. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fukui, Naoki & Sakai, Hiromu
2003The visibility guideline for functional categories: Verb raising in Japanese and related issues. Lingua 113: 321–375. Reprinted in Fukui (2006). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fukui, Naoki & Speas, Margaret
1986Specifiers and projection. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 128–172. Reprinted in Fukui (2006).Google Scholar
Fukui, Naoki & Takano, Yuji
1998Symmetry in syntax: Merge and Demerge. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7: 27–86. Reprinted in Fukui (2006). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000Nominal structure: An extension of the Symmetry Principle. In The Derivation of VO and OV, Peter Svenonius (ed), 219–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Reprinted in Fukui (2006). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fukui, Naoki & Zushi, Mihoko
2008On certain differences between noun phrases and clauses. In Essays on Nominal Determination, Henrik Høeg Müller & Alex Klinge (eds), 265–285. John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gallego, Ángel J.
2007Phase theory and parametric variation. PhD dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
2010Phase Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gambell, Timothy & Yang, Charles D.
2003Scope and limits of statistical learning in word segmentation. In Proceedings of NELS 34, 29–30.
Georgopoulos, Carol Perkins
1991Syntactic Variables: Resumptive Pronouns and Binding in Palauan. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goto, Nobu
2010Some consequences of feature inheritance. In English Literature, Regional Branches Combined Issue III, 113–136. The Tohoku Branch of the English Literary Society of Japan.Google Scholar
2011Feature-inheritance: Its effects on Agree, Move, and Delete. PhD dissertation, Tohoku Gakuin University.
Graffi, Giorgio
2001200 Years of Syntax: A Critical Survey. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane B.
1982Subcategorization and grammatical relations. In Subjects and Other Subjects: Proceedings of the Harvard Conference on the Representation of Grammatical Relations, Annie Zaenen (ed), 35–55. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
1991/2005Extended projection. In Words and Structure, 1–73 (final version of the manuscript written in 1991). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Groat, Erich
1997A derivational program for syntactic theory. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.
1999Raising the case of expletives. In Working Minimalism, Samuel David Epstein & Norbert Hornstein (eds), 27–44. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Groat, Erich & O’Neil, John
1996Spell-Out at the LF interface: Achieving a unified syntactic computational system in the minimalist framework. In Minimal Ideas: Syntactic Studies in the Minimalist Framework, Werner Abraham, Samuel David Epstein, Höskuldur Thráinsson, & Jan-Wouter Zwart (eds), 113–139. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guimarães, Maximiliano
2000In defense of vacuous projections in bare phrase structure. University Of Maryland Working Papes In Linguistics 9: 90–115.Google Scholar
Hagstrom, Paul
1998Decomposing questions. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Haider, Hubert
1990Topicalization and other puzzles of German syntax. In Scrambling and Barriers, Gunther Grewendorf & Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds), 93–111. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel J.
1993On argument structure and the lexical expression of grammatical relations. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Ken Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds), 53–110. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2002Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec
1993Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Ken Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1994Some key features of Distributed Morphology. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 275–288.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Stevens, Kenneth
1959Analysis by synthesis. In Proceedings of Seminar on Speech Compression and Processing, Vol. 2, paper D7.Google Scholar
1963Speech recognition: A model and a program for research. IRE Transactions on Information Theory 8: 155–159. [Reprinted in Morris Halle. 2002. From Memory to Speech and Back. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.]. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge & Knecht, Laura
1976The role of the subject/non-subject distinction in determining the choice of relative clause participle in Turkish. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society 6 Montréal WPL: 123–135.Google Scholar
Hauser, Marc D., Chomsky, Noam, & Fitch, W. Tecumseh
2002The Faculty of Language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298(5598): 1569–1579. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heck, Fabian
2008On Pied-piping: Wh-movement and beyond. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009On certain properties of pied-piping. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 75–111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene & Kratzer, Angelika
1998Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline
1995Asymmetries in reconstruction. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 547–570.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James
1985On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 547–594.Google Scholar
Hinzen, Wolfram
2006Mind Design and Minimal Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007An Essay on Names and Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, Ken
2005Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: Agreement and clausal architecture. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Hiraiwa, Ken & Ishihara, Shinichiro
2002Missing links: Cleft, sluicing and ‘no da’ construction in Japanese. In Proceedings of HUMIT 2001. MITWPL #43, 35–54. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
2012Syntactic metamorphosis: Clefts, sluicing, and in-situ focus in Japanese. Syntax 15(2): 142–180. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, Eric
1991Licensing conditions on phrase structure. PhD dissertation, University of Groningen.
Hoekstra, Jarich & Marácz, Laszlo
1989On the position of inflection in West-Germanic. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 44: 75–88.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun & Mulder, René
1990Unergatives as copular verbs: Locational and existential predication. The Linguistic Review 7: 1–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoji, Hajime
1990Theories of anaphora and aspects of Japanese syntax. ms. University of Southern California.
2003Falsifiability and repeatability in generative grammar: A case study of anaphora and scope dependency in Japanese. Lingua 113: 377–446. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders
2000Deriving OV order in Finnish. In The Derivation of VO and OV, Peter Svenonius (ed), 123–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders & Hróarsdóttir, Throbjörg
2003Agreement and movement in Icelandic raising constructions. Lingua 113: 997–1019. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004Agreement and movement in Icelandic raising constructions. Lingua 114: 651–673. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert
2009A Theory of Syntax: Minimal Operations and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert & Pietroski, Paul M.
2009Basic operations: Minimal syntax-semantics. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 8: 113–139.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert & Uriagereka, Juan
1999Labels and projections: a note on the syntax of quantifiers. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 249–270.Google Scholar
2002Reprojections. In Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, Samuel David Epstein & T. Daniel Seely (eds), 106–132. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James
1982Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT. Edited and published by Garland Publishing, New York (1998).
Iatridou, Sabine
1993On nominative case assignment and a few related things. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19: 175–196.Google Scholar
Irurtzun, Aritz
2006Focus and clause structuration in the minimalist program. In Minimalist Essays, Cedric Boeckx (ed), 68–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007The grammar of focus at the interfaces. PhD dissertation, University of the Basque Country.
Ishii, Toru
1997An asymmetry in the composition of phrase structure and its consequences. PhD dissertation, University of California, Irvine.
Jackendoff, Ray
1977X'-syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jayaseelan, Karattuparambil
2008Bare phrase structure and specifier-less syntax. Biolinguistics 2: 87–106.Google Scholar
Kato, Takaomi
2004Not so overt movement. In Proceedings of WCCFL 23, 436–449.Google Scholar
2006Symmetries in coordination. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.
2007On the nature of the left branch condition: Syntactic or phonological? In Proceedings of the 9th Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar.
Kato, Takaomi, Kuno, Masakazu, Narita, Hiroki, Zushi, Mihoko, & Fukui, Naoki
2014Generalized search and cyclic derivation by phase: A preliminary study. Sophia Linguistica 61: 203–222.Google Scholar
Kawasaki, Noriko
1989Jibun-tachi and non-coreferential anaphora. In Papers in Quantification, NFS Grant BNS 8719999, Principal investigators: Emmon Bach, Angelika Kratzer and Barbara Partee, Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S.
1981aECP extensions. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 93–133.Google Scholar
1981bUnambiguous paths. In Levels of Syntactic Representation, R. May & J. Koster (eds), 143–183. Reidel.Google Scholar
1983Connectedness. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 223–249.Google Scholar
1984Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2004aAntisymmetry and Japanese. In Variation and Universals in Biolinguistics, L. Jenkins (ed), 3–35. Elsevier B. V.Google Scholar
2004bPrepositions as probes. In Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Adriana Belletti (ed), 192–212. Reprinted in Richard S. Kayne, Movement and silence, 2005, pp. 85–105. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2009Antisymmetry and the lexicon. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 8(1): 1–31. Reprinted in Di Sciullo and Boeckx (2011). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011Why are there no directionality parameters? In Proceedings of WCCFL 28, Mary Byram Washburn, Katherine McKinney-Bock, Erika Varis, Ann Sawyer, & Barbara Tomaszewicz (eds), Somerville, MA., 1–23. Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Kishimoto, Hideki
2005Wh-in-situ and movement in Sinhala questions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 1–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin
1987Configurationality in Hungarian. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kitahara, Hisatsugu
1997Elementary Operations and Optimal Derivations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda & Sportiche, Dominique
1983Variables and the bijection principle. The Linguistic Review 2: 139–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
1996Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds), 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000The event argument and the semantics of verbs. ms. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Kuno, Masakazu
2003Scrambling in Japanese as pure Merge. Linguistic Research: Working Papers in English Linguistics (Tokyo University English Linguistics Association): 45–78.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu
1973The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1978Danwa-no Bunpo [The Grammar of Discourse]. Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten.Google Scholar
Kurafuji, Takeo
1999Japanese pronouns in dynamic semantics: The null/overt contrast. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.
Kural, Murat
1993V-to (I-to) -C in Turkish. In UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 11, Filippo Beghelli & Murat Kural (eds), 17–54.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y.
1965Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. PhD dissertation, MIT.
1971Remarks on the notion of subject. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 11: 98–156.Google Scholar
1972Categorical and thetic judgments: Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language 9: 1–37.Google Scholar
1976Subject. In Japanese Generative Grammar, Masayoshi Shibatani (ed), 1–16. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1988Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. In Papers from the Second International Workshop on Japanese Syntax, W.J. Poser (ed), 103–143. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications.Reprinted in S.-Y. Kuroda (1992).Google Scholar
1992Japanese Syntax and Semantics: Collected Papers. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999Bunpo riron to tetsugakuteki shizenshugi [Grammatical theory and philosophical naturalism]. In Gengo to Shiko [Language and Thought], Noam Chomsky & Masayuki Oishi (eds), 95–134. Tokyo: Shohakusha.Google Scholar
2005Focusing on the matter of topic: A study of wa and ga in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 14: 1–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lamontagne, Greg & Travis, Lisa deMena
1986The Case Filter and the ECP. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 51–75.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard
1990Essays on Restrictiveness and Learnability. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999Chains of arguments. In Working Minimalism, Samuel David Epstein & Norbert Hornstein (eds), 189–215. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2003Minimalist Investigations in Linguistic Theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard, Depiante, Marcela, & Stepanov, Arthur
2000Syntactic Structures Revisited: Contemporary Lectures on Classic Transformational Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard & Park, Myung-Kwan
2003The EPP and the Subject Condition under Sluicing. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 649–660. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard & Saito, Mamoru
1991On the subject of infinitives. In Papers from the 27th Regional Meeting of Chicago Linguistic Society 1991. Part 1: The General Session, Lise M. Dobrin, Lynn Nichols, & Rosa M. Rodriguez (eds), 324–343. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistics Society. Reprinted in H. Lasnik (1999), Minimalist Analysis, Blackwell.Google Scholar
1992Move α: Conditions on its Applications and Outputs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard, Uriagereka, Juan, & Boeckx, Cedric
2005A Course in Minimalist Syntax: Foundations and Prospects. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lohndal, Terje
2012Without specifiers: Phrase structure and events. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
Longobardi, Giuseppe
2003Methods in parametric linguistics and cognitive history. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 3: 101–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John
1968Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec
1984On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1996‘Cat’ as a phrasal idiom: Consequences of late insertion in Distributed Morphology. ms., MIT.
1997No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, 201–225. University of Pennsylvania Working Papersin Linguistics, Vol. 4.2.Google Scholar
2007Phases and words. In Phases in the Theory of Grammar, S.-H. Choe (ed), 191–222. Seoul: Dong In.Google Scholar
Martin, Roger
2001Null Case and the distribution of PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 141–166. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marušič, Franc
2009If non-simultaneous spell-out exists, this is what it can explain. In Merging Features: Computation, Interpretation and Acquisition, Josep M. Brucart, Anna Gavarró, & Jaume Solà (eds), 175–193. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matushansky, Ora
2006Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 69–109. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
May, Robert
1985Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
McCawley, James
1968Concerning the base component of a transformational grammar. Foundations of Language 4: 243–269.Google Scholar
McGilvray, James
1998Meanings are syntactically individuated and found in the head. Mind and Language 13: 225–280. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002MOPs: The science of concepts. In Belief and Meaning: Essays at the Interface, Wolfram Hinzen & Hans Rott (eds), 73–103. Frankfurt: Ontos.Google Scholar
2009Introduction to the third edition. Noam Chomsky (2009) Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought, Third Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McGinn, Colin
1991The Problem of Consciousness. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
1993Problems in Philosophy. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru
1997Against optional scrambling. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 1–25.Google Scholar
2003A-movement scrambling and options without optionality. In Word Order and Scrambling, S. Karimi (ed). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2010Why Agree? Why Move?: Unifying Agreement-based and Discourse Configurational Languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mori, Nobue
2005A syntactic structure of lexical verbs. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
Moro, Andrea
1997aDynamic antisymmetry: Movement as a symmetry-breaking phenomenon. Studia Linguistica 51: 50–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997bThe Raising of Predicates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000Dynamic Antisymmetry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2007Some notes on unstable structures. ms. Universita San Raffaele, Milano.
Motomura, Mitsue
2003The thematic roles of sentential to/ko complements in Japanese/Korean. In Japanese Korean Linguistics 11, Patricia M. Clency (ed), 439–454. CSLI/Stanford University.Google Scholar
Narita, Hiroki
2007aProject Both in Japanese, with a case study of head-internal relative clauses. In Proceedings of the 8th Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, Yukio Otsu (ed), 213–237. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
2007bA “Project Both” perspective on covert movement in Japanese head-internal relative clauses. Master’s thesis, Sophia University.
2008Two ways of pronouncing “unpronounceable” QR. In Proceedings of TCP2008, Yukio Otsu (ed), 151–175. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
2009aFull interpretation of optimal labeling. Biolinguistics 3(2–3): 213–254.Google Scholar
2009bHow syntax naturalizes semantics: A review of Uriagereka (2008). Lingua 119(11): 1767–1775. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009c, 4Multiple Transfer in service of recursive Merge. Paper presented at The 32nd GLOW Colloquium at Nantes University, April 15th–18th, 2009. Abstract published in GLOW Newsletter #62, 89–91.
2009dThe naturalist program for neo-Cartesian biolinguistics. In Proceedings of Sophia University Linguistic Society 24, Takahito Shinya & Ako Imaoka (eds), 55–91.Google Scholar
2010The tension between explanatory and biological adequacy: Review of Fukui (2006). Lingua 120(5): 1313–1323. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011Phasing in Full Interpretation. PhD dissertation, Harvard University. http://​ling​.auf​.net​/lingBuzz​/001304.
2012aHead-detection, phases, and the complementarity of XP- v.s. X0-movement. In Online Proceedings of GLOW in Asia Workshop for Young Scholars 2011, Koichi Otaki, Hajime Takeyasu, & Shin-ichi Tanigawa (eds), 232–246. http://​faculty​.human​.mieu​.ac​.jp​/ glow mie​/Workshop Proceedings​/18Narita​.pdf.
2012bPhase cycles in service of projection-free syntax. In Phases: Developing the Framework, Ángel J. Gallego (ed), 125–172. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2012cRemarks on the nature of headedness and compositionality in bare phrase structure. In Proceedings of Sophia University Linguistic Society 26, Haruka Toyoda (ed), 81–126.Google Scholar
2012d*{XP, YP}, the independence of the LCA and antisymmetry, and the LCA-free phase-based account of the CED effect. ms. Waseda Institute for Advanced Study. To appear in Balazs Suranyi, ed., Minimalist Approaches to Syntactic Locality, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. forthcoming. *{t, t}. To appear in WCCFL 32 Proceedings.
Narita, Hiroki & Fujita, Koji
2010A naturalist reconstruction of minimalist and evolutionary biolinguistics. Biolinguistics 4(4): 356–376.Google Scholar
Narita, Hiroki & Fukui, Naoki
2012Merge and (a)symmetry. ms. Waseda Institute for Advanced Study and Sophia University. Paper presented by the second author at the Kyoto Conference on Biolinguistics, Kyoto University, March 12, 2012.
Narita, Hiroki, Kato, Takaomi, & Zushi, Mihoko
2013Review of Di Sciullo and Boeckx (2011). English Linguistics 30: 780–791.Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad & Weerman, Fred
1999Flexible Syntax: A Theory of Case and Arguments. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J.
2005Possible and Probable Languages: A Generative Perspective on Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Newmeyer’s rejoinder to Roberts and Holmberg on parameters. ms. University of Washington. lingBuzz/000248.
2010Three approaches to exceptionality in syntactic typology. In Expecting the Unexpected: Exceptions in Grammar, Horst Simon & Heike Wiese (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nishigauchi, Taisuke
1990aQuantification in syntax. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
1990bQuantification in the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1991Construing wh. In Logical Structure and Linguistic Structure: Cross-linguistic Perspectives, C.-T. James Huang & Robert May (eds), 197–231. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Nissenbaum, Jon
2000Investigations of covert phrase movement. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Nunes, Jairo
2004Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo & Uriagereka, Juan
2000Cyclicity and extraction domains. Syntax 3: 20–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Obata, Miki
2010Root, successive-cyclic and feature-splitting Internal Merge: Implications for feature-inheritance and Transfer. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan.
Ott, Dennis
2009The conceptual necessity of phases: Some remarks on the minimalist enterprise. In Explorations of phase theory: Interpretation at the interfaces, K.K. Grohmann (ed). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2010Grammaticality, interfaces, and UG. In Exploring Crash-proof Grammars, Michael Putnam (ed), 89–104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011aLocal instability. PhD dissertation, Harvard University. Published online at http://​irs​.ub​.rug​.nl​/dbi​/4e8027471fa04, GAGL (Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik).
2011bA note on free relative clauses in the theory of phases. Linguistic Inquiry 42: 183–192. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Local Instability: Split Topicalization and Quantifier Float in German. Berlin/New York: Walter De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
in press. Symmetric merge and local instability: Evidence from split topics. Syntax.
Pesetsky, David
1982Paths and categories. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther
2001T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed), 355–426. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2004Tense, case, and the nature of syntactic categories. In The Syntax of Time, Jacqueline Guéron & Alexander Lecarme (eds), 495–537. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2006Probes, goals, and the nature of syntactic categories. In Proceedings of the 7th Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, Yukio Otsu (ed), 25–60. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
2007The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation. In Honor of Joseph E. Emonds, Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian, & Wendy Wilkins (eds), 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peters, Stanley P. & Ritchie, Robert W.
1973On the generative power of transformational grammars. Science 6: 49–83.Google Scholar
Petitto, Laura-Ann
2005How the brain begets language. In The Cambridge Companion to Chomsky, James McGilvray (ed), 84–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Piattelli-Palmarini, Massimo, Uriagereka, Juan, & Salaburu, Pello
(eds) 2009Of Minds and Language: A Dialogue with Noam Chomsky in the Basque Country. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pietroski, Paul M.
2000On explaining that. Journal of Philosophy 97: 655–662. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005Events and Semantic Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2008Minimalist meaning, internalist interpretation. Biolinguistics 2(4): 317–341.Google Scholar
Poeppel, David, Idsardi, William J., & van Wassenhove, Virginie
2008Speech perception at the interface of neurobiology and linguistics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 363: P1071–1086. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves
1989Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M.
1974On Raising: One Rule of English Grammar and its Theoretical Implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillan & Svenonius, Peter
2009Mapping a parochial lexicon onto a universal semantics. In The Limits of Syntactic Variation, Theresa Biberauer (ed), 219–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Raposo, Eduardo & Uriagereka, Juan
1995Two types of small clauses: Toward a syntax of theme/rheme relations. In Small Clauses, Anna Cardinaletti & Maria Teresa Guasti (eds), 179–206. New York: Academic Press.Reprinted in Uriagereka (2002).Google Scholar
1996Indefinite SE. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 749–810. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya
1976Syntacic domain of anaphora. PhD dissertation, MIT.
1981Definite NP anaphora and c-command domains. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 605–635.Google Scholar
1983Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Richards, Marc D.
2004Object shift, scrambling, and symmetrical syntax. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.
2007aDynamic linearization and the shape of phases. Linguistic Analysis 33: 209–237.Google Scholar
2007bOn feature inheritance: An argument from the phase impenetrability condition. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 563–572. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Richards, Norvin
1997What moves where when in which language? PhD dissertation, MIT.
1999Featural cyclicity and the ordering of multiple specifiers. In Working Minimalism, Samuel David Epstein & Nobert Hornstein (eds), 127–158. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2001Movement in Language: Interactions and Architectures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk
1978A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness: The Binding Nature of Prepositional Phrases. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk & Williams, Edwin
1986Introduction to the Theory of Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
1978Violations of the wh-island constraint in Italian and the subjacency condition. In Montreal Working Papers in Linguistics 11, 155–190. Reprinted in Rizzi (1982), 49–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1982Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1990Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1997The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2006On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Wh-movement: Moving on, Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds), 97–133. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian
2010Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter S.
1970A principle governing deletion in English sentential complementation. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds), 220–9. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Ross, J.R.
1967Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Ross, John Robert
1974Three batons for cognitive psychology. In Cognition and the Symbolic Processes, Walter B. Weimer & David Palermo (eds). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
1986Infinite Syntax! (Language and Being). New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Incorporation.Google Scholar
Saito, Mamoru
1985Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications. PhD dissertation, MIT.
1989Scrambling as semantically vacuous A'-movement. In Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, Mark R. Baltin & Anthony S. Kroch (eds), 182–200. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1992Long distance scrambling in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1: 69–118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003A derivational approach to the interpretation of scrambling chains. Lingua 113: 481–558. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005On Miyagawa’s analysis of A-scrambling. Paper presented at Keio University Linguistics Colloquium, November 25th, 2005.
Saito, Mamoru & Fukui, Naoki
1998Order in phrase structure and movement. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 439–474. Reprinted in Fukui (2006). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sakai, Hiromu
2000Predicate ellipsis and nominalization. In Proceedings of the 2000 Seoul International Conference on Language and Computation, 85–113. Seoul, Korea: The Linguistic Society of Korea.
Samuels, Bridget & Narita, Hiroki
2013Phasing out projection: Considerations from the syntax-phonology interface. Linguistic Analysis 38(3–4): 357–391.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli
1998The meaning of chains. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Sciullo, Anna Maria Di & Boeckx, Cedric
(eds) 2011The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Seely, T. Daniel
2006Merge, derivational c-command, and subcategorization in a label-free syntax. In Minimalist Essays, Cedric Boeckx (ed), 182–217. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O.
1995Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, John A. Goldsmith (ed), 550–569. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle
2009The final-over-final constraint as an effect of complement stranding. Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics 15: 104–125.Google Scholar
2010Labelling, multiple spell-out and the final-over-final constraint. In Incontro di Grammatica Generativa XXXV 2010, Vincenzo Moscati & Emilio Servidio (eds), Siena.Google Scholar
2013aSome implications of a copy theory of labeling. Syntax 16(4): 362–396. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013bThe resuscitation of CED. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 40), Seda Kan, Claire Moore-Cantwell & Robert Staubs (eds), 135–150. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Simon, Mutsuko Endo
1989An analysis of the postposing construction in Japanese. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan.
Sorida, Masanobu
2011Cyclic Transfer, chains, and the A/A' problem of Japanese scrambling. Paper presented at the Chains in Minimalism conference, Yokohama National University, February 12–13, 2011.
2012Unweaving chains. PhD dissertation, Sophia University, Tokyo.
Sportiche, Dominique
1988A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 425–449.Google Scholar
Starke, Michal
2004On the inexistence of specifiers and the nature of heads. In Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Adriana Belletti (ed), 252–268. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stepanov, Arthur
2007The end of CED? minimalism and extraction domains. Syntax 10(1): 80–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stowell, Tim
1981Origins of phrase structure. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Suñer, Margarita
1994V-movement and the licensing of argumental Wh-phrases in Spanish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12(2): 335–372. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter
1994C-selection as feature-checking. Studia Linguistica 58: 133–155. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003Limits on P: Filling in holes vs. falling in holes. Nordlyd. Proceedings of the 19th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics 31: 431–445.Google Scholar
2004On the edge. In Peripheries: Syntactic Edges and their Effects, David Adger, Cécile de Cat, & George Tsulas (eds), 261–287. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
2010Spatial P in English. In Mapping Spatial PPs: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 6, Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds), 127–161. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Takahashi, Daiko
1994Minimality of movement. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Takahashi, Shoichi
2010The hidden side of clausal complements. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28: 343–380. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Takano, Yuji
1995Predicate fronting and internal subjects. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 327–340.Google Scholar
1996Movement and parametric variation in syntax. PhD dissertation, University of California, Irvine.
2000Illicit remnant movement. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 141–156. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, Hidekazu
2001Right-dislocation as scrambling. Journal of Linguistics 37: 551–579. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tenny, Carol Lee
1987Grammaticalizing aspect and affectedness. PhD dissertation, MIT.
1994Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Boston: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur
1996On the (non-)universality of functional categories. In Minimal Ideas: Syntactic Studies in the Minimalist Framework, Werner Abraham, Samuel David Epstein, Höskuldur Thráinsson, & JanWouter Zwart (eds), 253–281. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Toyoshima, Takashi
1997Derivational CED: A consequence of the bottom-up parallel-process of Merge and Attract. In WCCFL 17 Proceedings, 505–519.Google Scholar
Truswell, Robert
2007aExtraction from adjuncts and the structure of events. Lingua 117: 1355–1377. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007bLocality of wh-movement and the individuation of events. PhD dissertation, University College London.
2008Preposition stranding, passvisation, and extraction from adjuncts in Germanic. ms. Tufts University.
2011Events, Phrases, and Questions. Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ueyama, Ayumi
1998Two types of dependency. PhD dissertation, University of South California.
Uriagereka, Juan
1988On government. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
1997Formal and substantive elegance in the minimalist program (on the emergence of some linguistic forms). In The Role of Economy Principles in Linguistic Theory, C. Wilder, H.-M. Gartner, & M. Bierwisch (eds), 170–204. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
1999Multiple Spell-Out. In Working Minimalism, Samuel David Epstein & Norbert Hornstein (eds), 251–282. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2002Derivations: Exploring the Dynamics of Syntax. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2008Syntactic Anchors: On Semantic Structuring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Spell-Out and the Minimalist Program. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Akira
1992aSubjacency and S-structure movement of wh-in-situ. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1: 255–291. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992bWh-in-situ, Subjacency, and Chain Formation, Volume 2 of MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics. MITWPL.Google Scholar
1996Case Absorption and Wh-Agreement. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000Feature copying and binding. Syntax 3: 159–181. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Functional projections of nominals in Japanese: Syntax of classifiers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24: 241–306. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008The structure of DP. In The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, Shigeru Miyagawa & Mamoru Saito (eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Webelhuth, Gert
1992Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wexler, Kenneth & Culicover, Peter W.
1980Formal Principles of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin
1981Argument structure and morphology. The Linguistic Review 1: 81–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wujastyk, Dominik
1982Bloomfield and the Sanskrit origin of the terms ‘exocentric’ and ‘endocentric’. Historiographia Linguistica 9(1/2): 179–184. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Charles D.
2002Knowledge and Learning in Natural Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2004Universal grammar, statistics or both? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(10): 451–456. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter
1993Dutch syntax: a minimalist approach. PhD dissertation, University of Groningen.
2011Structure and order: asymmetric merge. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism, Cedric Boeckx (ed), 96–118. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

No author info given
2015.  In Rethinking Syntactocentrism [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 225], Crossref logo
Benítez-Burraco, Antonio & Elliot Murphy
2016. The Oscillopathic Nature of Language Deficits in Autism: From Genes to Language Evolution. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 10 Crossref logo
Murphy, Elliot
2015. Labels, cognomes, and cyclic computation: an ethological perspective. Frontiers in Psychology 6 Crossref logo
Murphy, Elliot
2015. The brain dynamics of linguistic computation. Frontiers in Psychology 6 Crossref logo
Murphy, Elliot & Antonio Benítez-Burraco
2016. Bridging the Gap between Genes and Language Deficits in Schizophrenia: An Oscillopathic Approach. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 10 Crossref logo
Trotzke, Andreas
2019. A note on the emotive origins of syntax. Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 1:1  pp. 90 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 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.

Subjects
BIC Subject: CFK – Grammar, syntax
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2014023417 | Marc record