Head Movement in Syntax

| CASTL, University of Tromso
HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027257079 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027268143 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
Head Movement in Syntax argues that verb movement is a narrow syntactic phenomenon that can affect locality constraints. The altered locality domains are detectable from the way certain phrasal elements such as a phrase containing a Wh are forced to undergo movement. The basic idea explored in the book dates back to Chomsky (1986) where the movement of a verb is proposed to be able to affect and alter a barrier. This idea is translated into contemporary minimalist apparatus to capture locality conditions, with Wh movement in Malayalam, a Dravidian language spoken in Southern India, providing the necessary data. The book also points out that analysing Wh movement in Malayalam as a sub-case of Focus movement is untenable and offers a fresh perspective on Wh-in-situ versus Wh-movement. In addition, the book provides a comprehensive analysis of the pronominal system in Malayalam, a language that violates the canonical binding conditions.
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 224]  2015.  xi, 190 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
vii–viii
Abbreviations used in glosses
ix–x
Abstract
xi–xii
Chapter 1. Introduction
1–6
Chapter 2. SOV via head movement
7–30
Chapter 3. aanu Construction
31–64
Chapter 4. Wh in Malayalam – morphology
65–90
Chapter 5. Wh in interrogative constructions
91–114
Chapter 6. Positioning the Wh
115–140
Chapter 7. In-situ versus movement
141–160
Chapter 8. Conclusion
161–162
Chapter 9. Afterword: Verb movement and word order
163–180
References
181–188
Index
189–190
References

References

Abels, K. & Neeleman, A.
2007Linear Symmetries and the LCA. Ms. UiT & University College, London. Published later as Abels & Neeleman 2012 Syntax 15(1): 25–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A. & Anagnostopoulou, E.
1998Parametrizing AGR: Word order, verb-movement and EPP checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 491-539. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Amritavalli, R. & Jayaseelan, K.A.
2005aFiniteness and negation in Dravidian. In The Oxford Handbook Of Comparative Syntax, G. Cinque & R.S. Kayne (eds), 114-136. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2005bScrambiling in the cleft construction in Dravidian. In The Free Word Order Phenomena, J. Sabel & M. Saito (eds). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Anandan, K.N.
1985: Predicate Nominals In English And Malayalam. M. Litt. dissertation. CIEFL. Hyderabad.
1993Constraints on extraction from coordinate structures in English and Malayalam. Ph.D. dissertation, Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages, Hyderabad, India.
Aoun, J. & Li, Y.-H. A.
1993a Wh-elements in situ: Syntax or LF? Linguistic Inquiry 24: 199–238.Google Scholar
1993bOn some differences between Chinese and Japanese Wh-elements. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 365–372.Google Scholar
Asher, R.E. & Kumari, T.C.
1997Malayalam. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bachrach, A. & Katzir, R.
2008Right node raising and delayed spell-out. In Interphases: Phase-Theoretic Investigations of Linguistic Interfaces, K.K. Grohmann (ed.). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Baker, M.
1988Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bayer, J.
2005Wh-in-situ. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax 5, M.B.H. Everaert & H.C. van Riemsdijk (eds). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Beck, S.
1996Quantified structures as barriers for LF-movement. Natural Language Semantics 4: 1-56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14: 1-56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beck, S. & Kim, S.-S.
1997On Wh- and operator scope in Korean. Journal Of East Asian Linguistics 6: 339–384. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berman, S.
1991On the Semantics and Logical Form of WH-Clauses. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Biberauer, T.
2005Splitting not spreading: A new perspective on the C/T connection. Paper presented at GLOW in Asia, New Delhi.
Boeckx, C. & Grohmann, K.K.
2007Putting phases in perspective. Syntax 10: 204–222. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boskovic, Z.
2002On multiple Wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 351–383. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brandner, E.
2000Scope marking and clausal typing. In Wh-Scope Marking [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 37], U. Lutz, G. Müller & A. von Stechow (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brody, M.
2000Mirror theory: Syntactic representation in perfect syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 29-56 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Syntax and symmetry. STIL – Studies in Linguistics 6:167-177. Special issue on Directionality of Phrase Structure Building .Google Scholar
Brokehuis, H.
2013Feature Inheritance Versus Extended Projections. Lingbuzz/001775.Google Scholar
Bye, P. & Svenonius P.
2011Exponence, phonology and non-concatenative morphology. Ms, University of Tromsø.
Cable, S.
2007The Grammar of Q: Q-particles and the Nature of Wh-fronting, as Revealed by the Wh-questions of Tlingit. PhD dissertation, MIT.
2010The Grammar Of Q: Q-Particles, Wh-Movement, And Pied-Piping. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012The optionality of movement and EPP in Dholuo. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. http./​/link​.springer​.com​/article​/10​.1007​/s11049​-012​-9172​-6​/fulltext​.html CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, A.
2006Subjects and Wh-questions: Some new generalizations. In Romance Linguistics 2006: Selected Papers from the 36th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), New Brunswick, March-April 2006 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 287], J. Camacho, N. Flores-Ferrán, L. Sanchez, V. Deprez & M.J. Cabrera (eds), 57-78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, L. & Huang, J. C-T.
1996Two types of donkey sentences. Natural Language Semantics 4(2): 121-163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, L. L-S.
2009Wh- in-situ, from the 1980s to now. Language And Linguistics Compass 3(3): 767-791. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, L.
2003Wh-in-situ. Glot International 7(5): 129–137.Google Scholar
Cheng, L. L.-S.
1991On the Typology of Wh-questions. PhD dissertation, MIT. (Also published by Garland, 1997).
Cheng, L. L.-S. & Rooryck, J.
2000Licensing wh-in-situ. Syntax 3: 1–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Choi, Y-S.
1999Negation, its scope and NPI licensing in Korean. In ESCOL ’99, R. Daly & A. Riehl (eds), 25–36. CLC Publications: Ithaca.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.
1970Remarks on nominalization. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, R.A. Jacobs & P.S. Rosenbaum (eds). Waltham MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
1986Barriers. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1998Some observations on economy in generative grammar. In Is the Best Good Enough? Optimality and Competition in Syntax, P. Barbosa, D. Fox, P. Hagstrom, M. McGinnis & D. Pesetsky (eds). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (eds). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2001Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life In Language, M. Kenstowicz (ed.), 1-52. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2008On phases. Ms. MIT. Crossref
2013Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chung, D. & Park, H.-K.
1997NP is outside of negation scope. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 6, H.-M. Sohn & J. Haig (eds), 415–435. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Cinque, G.
1999Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Cole, P. & Hermon, G.
1998The typology of Wh-movement: Wh-questions in Malay. Syntax 1(3): 221-258. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cole, P., Harbert, W. & Hermon, G.
1982Headless relative clauses in Quechua. International Journal Of American Linguistics 48(2): 113-124. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Vos, M. & Vicente, L.
2005Coordination under right node raising. In WCCFL 24, J. Alderete, C.-H. Han & A. Kochetov (eds), 97–104. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Decháine R.-M. & Wiltschko, M.
2002Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33(3): 409–442. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Demirdache, H.
1997aCondition C. In Atomism and Binding, H. Bennis, P. Pica & J. Rooryck (eds). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1997bOn the temporal location of predication times: The role of determiners in Lillooet Salish. In Proceedings of WCCFL XV , 129–144.
Den Besten, H.
1976On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. Ms, University of Amsterdam & MIT.
Den Dikken, M.
2007Phase extension: Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction. Theoretical Linguistics 33(1): 1-41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diesing, M.
1992Indefiniteness. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Donati, C.
2006On Wh-head movement. In Wh-movement: Moving on, L. Cheng & N. Corver (eds), 21–46. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ducceschi, L.
2012Talking about This and That: Deictic Pronouns in Dravidian and Indo-Aryan Languages. PhD dissertation, University of Verona.
Eilam, A.
2008Intervention effects: Why Amharic patterns differently. In Presentation at the 27th Annual West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) , UCLA, May 16–18, 2008.
Elbourne, P.
2005Situations and Individuals. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Emonds, J.
1978The verbal complex V′-V in French. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 609–665.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G.
2001Features, Θ-roles, and free constituent order. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 405-437. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003Münchhausen-style head movement and the analysis of verb second. In Head Movement and Syntactic Theory [UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 10], A. Mahajan (ed.). Los Angeles CA: UCLA Linguistics.Google Scholar
2007The restricted access of information structure to syntax – A minority report. In The Notions of Information Structure [Working Papers of the SFB632, Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (ISIS) 6], C. Féry, G. Fanselow & M. Krifka (eds). Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
2009Bootstrapping verb movement and the clausal architecture of German. In Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 141], A. Alexiadou, J. Hankamer, T. McFadden, J. Nuger & F. Schäfer (eds), 85-118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, G. & Lenertovà, D.
2011Left peripheral focus: Mismatches between syntax and information structure. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(1): 169-209. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, M. & Hinterhölzl, R.
2004Types of topics in German and Italian. At Workshop on Information Structure and the Architecture of Grammar, University of Tübingen, February.
Fukui, N.
1993Parameters and optionality. Linguistic Inquiry 24(3): 399-420.Google Scholar
2006A Review of Theoretical Comparative Syntax: Studies in Macroparameters. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gallego, Á.J.
2005Phase sliding. Ms, UAB/UMD.
2010Phase Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 152]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gamut, L.T.F.
1991Logic, Language And Meaning. Chicago IL: University Press Of Chicago.Google Scholar
Georgi, D. & Müller, G.
. 2010Noun phrase structure by reprojection . Syntax 13: 1–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T.
1983Topic Continuity In Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study [Typological Studies in Language 3]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J.
1963Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Universals of Language, J. Greenberg (ed.), 73–113. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, G.
2001Multiple Wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 87–122. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005The discourse configurationality of scrambling. In The Free Word Order Phenomenon: Its Syntactic Sources And Diversity, J. Sabel & M. Saito (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, G. & Sabel, J.
1999Scrambling in German and Japanese: Adjunction versus multiple specifiers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 1–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, J.
1991Extended projections. Ms, Brandeis University.
2000Locality and extended projection. In Lexical Specification and Insertion [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 197], P. Coopmans, M.B.H. Everaert & J. Grimshaw (eds), 115-134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, B.
2008Complementiser Agreement – New Evidence from the Upper Austrian Variant of Gmunden. MA thesis, University of Vienna.
Gryllia, S.
2008On the Nature of Preverbal Focus in Greek: A Theoretical and Experimental Approach. PhD dissertationa, Universiteit Leiden. https://​Openaccess​.Leidenuniv​.Nl​/Bitstream​/1887​/13437​/3​/Gryllia​.Thesis​.Pdf
Hagstrom, P.
1998Decomposing Questions. Phd dissertation, MIT.
Haider, H.
1992Branching and discharge. Working Papers of the SFB 340 [#23]. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.
1993Principled variability –Parametrization without parameter fixing. In The Parametrization of Universal Grammar, G. Fanselow (ed.), 1–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995Studies on phrase structure and economy. SFB Working Papers #70. University of Stuttgart.
2000OV is more basic than VO. In The Derivation of VO and OV [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 31], P. Svenonius (ed.), 45-68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001Heads and selection. In Semi-Lexical Categories, N. Corver & H. van Riemsdijk (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010The Syntax of German. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Symmetry Breaking in Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2014Head directionality – In syntax and morphology. Ms. revised draft version (July - Oct 2014), University of Salzburg.
Hale, K.
1983Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 1: 3-47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hamblin, C.L.
1973Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10: 41-53.Google Scholar
Han, C.-H., Lidz, J. & Musolino, J.
2007V-raising and grammar competition in Korean: Evidence from negation and quantifier scope. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 1-47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heck, F.
2004A Theory of Pied-piping. PhD dissertation, University of Tübingen.
Heim, I.
1982The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
Hoji, H.
1985Logical Form Constraints and Configurational Structures in Japanese. PhD dissertation, University of Washington.
Holmberg, A. & Roberts, I.
2013The syntax-morphology relation. Lingua 130: 111-131. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, A.
2005Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 533-564. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Horvath, J.
1986FOCUS in the Theory of Grammar and the Syntax of Hungarian. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
2007Separating "Focus Movement" from Focus. In Phrasal and Clausal Architecture [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 101], S. Karimi, V. Samiian & W. Wilkins (eds), 108-145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010“Discourse features”. Syntactic displacement and the status of contrast. Lingua 120: 1346–1369. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J.
1982Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT.
2010Between Syntax and Semantics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
1977Syntax: A study of phrase structure. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph Two. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jayaseelan, K.A.
1989Parametric Studies in Malayalam Syntax. New Delhi: Allied Publishers Limited.Google Scholar
1999A focus phrase above vP. Proceedings of the Nanzan GLOW . Nanzan University: Nagoya.
Jayaseelan K.A.
2001aIP‐internal topic and focus phrases. Studia Linguistica 55: 39–75. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jayaseelan, K.A.
2001bQuestions and question-word incorporating quantifiers in Malayalam. Syntax 4: 63-93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003Question words in focus positions. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 3(1): 69-99. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jayaselan K.A.
2011Coordination and finiteness in Dravidian. Invited talk at the University of Tromsø, 9-10 June.
Kayne, R.S.
1994The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kenesei, I.
Kim, S.-S.
2002Focus matters: Two types of intervention effect. Paper Presented at WCCFL 21, Santa Cruz.
Kishimoto, H.
1992LF pied piping: Evidence from Sinhala. Gengo Kenkyu 102: 46–87.Google Scholar
2005Wh-in-situ and movement in Sinhala questions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 1–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kíss, K.É.
1998Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74: 245-227. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koizumi, M.
2000String vacuous overt verb raising. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9: 227–285. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, M.
2008Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55(3-4): 243-276. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y.
1965Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language. PhD dissertation. MIT. (Also published with Garland, 1979).
1972The categorical and the Thetic judgment: Evidence from Japanese. Foundations of Language 9: 153-85Google 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
Larson, B.
2011A dilemma with accounts of right node raising. Linguistic Inquiry 43(1): 143-150. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Larson, R.K.
1988On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–392.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H.
1986On the necessity of the binding conditions. Reproduced in Lasnik 1989.
Lee, F.
2003Anaphoric R-expressions as bound variables. Syntax 6: 84–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G.
1994Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 609–665.Google Scholar
Madhavan, P.
1987Clefts and Pseudo-Clefts in English and Malayalam: A Study in Comparative Syntax. PhD dissertation, CIEFL, Hyderabad.
Matthewson, L.
2004On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Journal of American Linguistics 70: 369–415. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, J.D.
1971Tense and time reference in English. In Studies in Linguistic Semantics, C.J. Fillmore & D.T. Langėndoen (eds), 96-113. Irvington.Google Scholar
Meinunger, A.
1995Case configuration and referentiality. In Console II Proceedings, R. Eckardt & V. van Geenhoven (eds).Google Scholar
Menon, M.
2012The Apparent Lack of Adjectival Category in Malayalam and Other Related Languages. http./​/Faculty​.Human​.Mie​-U​.Ac​.Jp​/~Glow​_Mie​/IX​_Proceedings​_Oral​/10Menon​.PdfGoogle Scholar
Miyagawa, S.
2010Why Agree? Why Move: Unifying Agreement-Based and Discourse Configurational Languages. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mortensen, D.
2003Two Kinds of Variable Elements in Hmong Anaphora. Ms, University of California at Berkeley. http./​/www​.Pitt​.Edu​/~Drm31​/Papers​/Two​_Kinds​_Of​_Variable​_Elements​.Pdf
Muriungi, P.
2004Wh-movement in Kitharaka as focus movement. In Proceedings of the Conference on the Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics of Questions held as part of 16th ESSLLI, I. Comorovski & M. Krifka (eds). Nancy: ESSLI, University Of Nancy.Google Scholar
Nakamura, N.
2002On feature movement. In Dimensions Of Movement. From Features to Remnants [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 48], A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou, S. Barbiers & H.-M. Gärtner (eds), 243-267. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nakao, C.
2004A note on Japanese anaphoric R-expressions. Linguistic Research 20: 207-214, University of Tokyo.Google Scholar
Narahara, T.
1995Alternatives to reflexives in Thai and Vietnamese: Binding theory and language variations. In Papers From The Third Annual Meeting Of The Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, M. Alves (ed.). Tempe AZ: Arizona State University, Program For Southeast Asian Studies.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A. & Szendroi, K.
2005Radical pro drop and the morphology of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 671–714. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nishigauchi, T.
1986Quantification in Syntax. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Pesetsky, D.
1997Wh-in situ: Movement and unselective binding. In The Representation of (In)definiteness, E. Reuland & A.G.B. ter Meulen (eds). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000Phrasal Movement and its Kin. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2007Property delay (remarks on “phase extension” by Marcel den Dikken). Theoretical Linguistics 33(1): 105–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, G.
2014 Deriving variable linearization . Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32: 263-282. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T.
1993Wh-in-situ in the framework of the minimalist program. Lecture at Utrecht Linguistic Colloquium. Distributed by OTS Working Papers in Linguistics and printed with slight revisions in Natural Language Semantics 1997.
Richards, N.
2001A distinctness condition on linearization. In Proceedings of the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, K. Megerdoomian & L.A. Bar-el (eds), 470-483. Somerville MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
2001Movement in Language: Interactions and architectures. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L.
1997The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, L. Haegeman (ed.), 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi L.
1999On the position ’Int(errogative)’ in the left periphery of the clause. Ms. Università di Siena. Published as (2001).
Rizzi, L.
2001On the position “Int (errogative)” in the left periphery of the clause. Current Studies in Italian Syntax 14: 267-296.Google Scholar
2007On some properties of criterial freezing. In CISCL Working Papers, Vol. 1, V. Moscati (ed.). Siena: University Of Siena.Google Scholar
2013Topic, focus, and the cartography of the left periphery. In The Bloomsbury Companion to Syntax, S. Luraghi & C. Parodi (eds). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Roberts, I.
2011Head movement and the Minimalist Program. In Oxford Handbook of Minimalism, C. Boeckx (ed.). Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rooth, M.
1992A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75-116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996Focus. In The Handbook Of Contemporary Semantic Theory, S. Lappin (ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ross, J.R.
1967Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Sabel, J.
2000Partial Wh-movement and the typology of Wh-questions. In Wh-Scope Marking [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistis Today 37], U. Lutz, G. Müller & A. von Stechow (eds), 409-446. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002Wh-questions and extraction asymmetries in Malagasy. In Proceedings Of The 8th Conference Of The Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA VIII) [MIT Working Papers In Linguistics 44], A. Rackowski & N. Richards (eds). Cambridge MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
2003Malagasy as an optional wh-fronting language. In Multiple Wh-Fronting [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 64], C. Boeckx & K.K. Grohmann (eds), 229-254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sabel, J. & Saito, M.
2005The Free Word Order Phenomenon: Its Syntactic Sources and Diversity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Saito, M.
1989Scrambling as semantically vacuous A′-movement. In Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, M. Baltin & A. Kroch (eds). Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sasse, H.-J.
1987The thetic-categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25: 511-580. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shimoyama, J.
2006Indeterminate phrase quantification in Japanese. Natural Language Semantics 14(2): 139–173. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, A. & Wu, Z.
2002Agreement, shells and focus. Language 78(2): 287-313. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, A.
1981The semantics of topic-focus articulation. In Formal Methods in the Study of Language, J.A.G. Groenendijk, T.M.V. Janssen & M.B.J. Stokhof (eds). Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.Google Scholar
Takahashi, D.
1997Move F and null operator movement. Linguistic Review 14: 181–196. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tirumalesh, K.V.
1996Topic and focus in Kannada: Implications for word order. South Asian Language Review 6: 25-48.Google Scholar
Travis, L.
1984Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Tsai, W.-T. D.
1994On Economizing the Theory of A’-Dependencies. PhD dissertation, MIT.
2008Left periphery and how-why alternations. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 17: 83-115. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, A.
1992Subjacency and S-structure movement of Wh-in-situ. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1: 255-291. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, K. & Cullicover, P.
1980Formal Principles of Language Acquisition. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, M.
2009What’s in a determiner and how did it get there? In Determiners: Universals and Variation, , J. Ghomeshi, I. Paul & M. Wiltschko (eds), 25–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwart, C. J.-W.
1993Verb Movement and Complementizer Agreement [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, M.
2008Contrastive focus and emphasis. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55(3–4), 347–360. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Subjects
BIC Subject: CFK – Grammar, syntax
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2015021641 | Marc record