Rethinking Syntactocentrism

Architectural issues and case studies at the syntax-pragmatics interface

| University of Konstanz
Hardbound – Available
ISBN 9789027257086 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
 
e-Book –
ISBN 9789027268068 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
 
The term ‘syntactocentrism’ has been used to criticize the claim that syntax, as regarded in generative linguistics, plays the central role in modeling the mental architecture of the human language faculty. This research monograph explores the conjecture that many of the objections to the generative perspective, as they are formulated in alternative frameworks such as construction grammar, disappear once the consequences of recent minimalist theory are taken seriously. To show this, the book applies recent concepts of minimalist grammar to phenomena like the syntactic flexibility of idioms, the pragmatics of left-periphery-movement, or opacity effects involved in subextraction patterns. The book makes a new contribution to the field, as existing monographs on architectural matters in minimalism neither discuss alternative frameworks at length nor place a premium on pragmatic explanations for syntactic facts. The primary audience of this book are researchers and graduate students interested in a state-of-the-art discussion of grammatical architecture.
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 225]  2015.  vi, 147 pp.
Publishing status: Available
© John Benjamins
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.225
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction
1–4
Chapter 2. Syntactocentrism: Foundations and minimalist implementation
5–40
Chapter 3. The syntactocentric approach to the syntax-pragmatics interface
41–64
Chapter 4. Minimalist approaches to the syntax-pragmatics interface
65–102
Chapter 5. Alternatives to syntactocentrism
103–132
Chapter 6. Conclusion: Rethinking syntactocentrism
133–134
References
135–146
Index
147–148
Cited by

Cited by other publications

TROTZKE, ANDREAS
2017. A note on pragmatic constraints on syntax. Journal of Linguistics 53:2 ► pp. 437 ff. Crossref logo
Trotzke, Andreas
2019. A note on the emotive origins of syntax. Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 1:1 ► pp. 90 ff. Crossref logo
Trotzke, Andreas
2020. Constructions in Minimalism: A Functional Perspective on Cyclicity. Frontiers in Psychology 11 Crossref logo
Trotzke, Andreas & Stefano Quaglia
2016. Particle topicalization and German clause structure. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 19:2 ► pp. 109 ff. Crossref logo
TROTZKE, ANDREAS & EVA WITTENBERG
2017. Expressive particle verbs and conditions on particle fronting. Journal of Linguistics 53:2 ► pp. 407 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 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

Ackema, Peter & Neeleman, Ad
2004 Beyond Morphology: Interface Conditions on Word Formations. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, Ben & Goldberg, Adele E.
2008 The island status of clausal complements: Evi- dence in favor of an information structure explanation. Cognitive Linguistics 19: 357–389. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arsenijević, Boban & Hinzen, Wolfram
2012 On the absence of X-within-X recursion in human grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 43: 423–440. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bahlmann, Jörg, Schubotz, Ricarda I. & Friederici, Angela D.
2008 Hierarchical artificial grammar processing engages Broca’s area. NeuroImage 42: 525–534. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C.
2003 Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua
1953 On recursive definitions in empirical science. 11th International Congress of Philosophy 5: 160–165.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef, Hinterhölzl, Roland & Trotzke, Andreas
(eds) Forthcoming. Discourse-oriented Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref
Bayer, Josef & Obenauer, Hans-Georg
2011 Discourse particles, clause structure, and question types. The Linguistic Review 28: 449–491. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef & Trotzke, Andreas
. Forthcoming. The derivation and interpretation of left peripheral discourse particles. In Discourse-oriented Syntax, Josef Bayer, Roland Hinterhölzl & Andreas Trotzke (eds) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref
Becchio, Cristina & Bertone, Cesare
2004 Wittgenstein running: Neural mechanisms of collective intentionality and we-mode. Consciousness and Cognition 13: 123–133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berwick, Robert C., Friederici, Angela D., Chomsky, Noam & Bolhuis, Johan J.
2013 Evolution, brain, and the nature of language. Trends Cogn Sci 17: 89–98. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, Rakesh M.
1999 Verb Movement and the Syntax of Kashmiri. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric
2006 Linguistic Minimalism: Origins, Concepts, Methods, and Aims. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2008 Bare Syntax. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric & Piattelli-Palmarini, Massimo
2007 Linguistics in cognitive science: The state of the art amended. The Linguistic Review 24: 403–415. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel
2015 A theory of second occurence focus. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30: 73–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L.
1988 The diachronic dimension in explanation. In Explaining Language Universals, John A. Hawkins (ed), 350–379. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & McClelland, James L.
2005 Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. The Linguistic Review 22: 381–410. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Call, Josep & Tomasello, Michael
2008 Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? 30 years later. Trends Cogn Sci 12: 187–192. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Castillo, Juan C., Drury, John & Grohmann, Kleanthes K.
1999 Merge over move and the extended projection principle. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 63–103.Google Scholar
2009 Merge over move and the extended projection principle: MOM and the EPP revisited. Iberia 1: 53–114.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L.
1968 Idiomaticity as an anomaly in the Chomskyan paradigm. Foundations of Language 4: 109–127.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro
2004 Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena and the syntax-pragmatics interface. In Structures and Beyond, Adriana Belletti (ed), 39–103. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1956 Three models for the description of language. IRE Transactions of Information Theory IT-2 3: 113–124. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1957 Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
1959 On certain formal properties of grammars. Information and Control 2: 137–167. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1964 Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1966 Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought. New York NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
1970a Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In Studies in General and Oriental Linguistics Presented to Shirô Hattori on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, Roman Jakobson & Shigeo Kawamoto (eds), 52–91. Tokyo: TEC Company.Google Scholar
1970b Remarks on nominalization. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds), 184- 221. Waltham MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
1973 Conditions on transformations. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, Stephen R. Anderson & Paul Kiparsky (eds), 232–286. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
1975 Reflections on Language. New York NY: Pantheon.Google Scholar
1975 [1955] The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. New York NY: Plenum.Google Scholar
1980 Rules and Representations. New York NY: Columbia 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: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
1991 Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In Principles and Parameters in Generative Grammar, Robert Freidin (ed), 417–454. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1993 A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000 Minimalist inquiries. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds), 89–155. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2004 Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and Beyond, Adriana Belletti (ed), 104–131. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2005 Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero & Maria L. Zubizarreta (eds), 133–166. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Some simple evo devo theses: How true might they be for language? In The Evolution of Human Language: Biolinguistic Perspectives, Richard K. Larson, Viviane Déprez & Hiroko Yamakido (eds), 45–62. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris
1968 The Sound Pattern of English. New York NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, Halle, Morris & Lukoff, Fred
1956 On accent and juncture in English. In For Roman Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, Morris Halle, Horace G. Lunt, Hugh McLean & Cornelis H. van Schooneveld (eds), 65–80. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Lasnik, Howard
1977 Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 425–504.Google Scholar
1993 The 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. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Christiansen, Morten H. & Kirby, Simon
2003 Language evolution: The hardest problem in science? In Language Evolution, Morten H. Christiansen & Simon Kirby (eds), 1–15. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chung, Sandra & Ladusaw, William A.
2004 Restriction and Saturation. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
1990 Types of A‘-dependencies. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo & Rizzi, Luigi
2010 The cartography of syntactic structures. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds), 51–65. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H.
1996 Using Language. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & Marshall, Catherine R.
1981 Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In Elements of Discourse Understanding, Aravind K. Joshi, Bonnie L. Webber & Ivan A. Sag (eds), 10–63. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris
1997 Local Economy. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William
2007 Construction grammar. In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds), 463–508. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Croft, William & Cruse, D. Allan
2004 Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Jackendoff, Ray
2005 Simpler Syntax. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 The Simpler Syntax hypothesis. Trends Cogn Sci 10: 413–418. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Donald
1967 The logical form of action sentences. In The Logic of Decision and Action, Nicholas Rescher (ed), 81–120. Pittsburgh PA: Pittsburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Dehé, Nicole
2015 Particle verbs in Germanic. In Word Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer (eds), 611–626. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Descartes, René
2003[1637] Discourse on method. In Discourse on Method and Meditations, Elizabeth S. Haldane & George R. Thomson (eds), 1–52. Mineola NY: Dover.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly
1992 Indefinites. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dörre, Laura
2012 "Die Katze wurde von ihm im Sack gekauft“: Die Verarbeitung passivierter idiomatischer Sätze bei Sprachgesunden und einem Patienten mit Agrammatismus. MA thesis, University of Konstanz.
Elordieta, Gorka
2007 Segmental phonology and syntactic structure. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds), 125–177. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Embick, David
2010 Localism vs. Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi
1973 On the Nature of Island Constraints. PhD dissertation, MIT.
1997 The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert
2003 Surprising specifiers and cyclic spellout. Generative Linguistics in Poland 5: 29–46.Google Scholar
2004 Cyclic phonology-syntax-interaction: Movement to first position in German. In Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure, Shinichiro Ishihara, Michaela Schmitz & Anne Schwarz (eds), 1–42. Potsdam: Potsdam University Press.Google Scholar
2006 On pure syntax. In Form, Structure, and Grammar, Patrick Brandt & Eric Fuss (eds), 137–157. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
2008 In need of mediation: The relation between syntax and information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55: 397–413. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert & Lenertová, Denisa
2008 Left peripheral focus: Mismatches between syntax and information structure. Ms., University of Potsdam.
2011 Left peripheral focus: Mismatches between syntax and information structure. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29: 169–209. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fellbaum, Christiane
2015 Syntax and grammar of idioms and collocations. In Syntax: Theory and Analysis, Vol 2, Tibor Kiss & Artemis Alexiadou (eds), 776–802. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul & O’Connor, Mary C.
1988 Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of ‘let alone’. Language 64: 501–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fitch, W. Tecumseh
2009 Prolegomena to a science of biolinguistics. In Learning from Animals? Examining the Nature of Human Uniqueness, Louise S. Röska-Hardy & Eva M. Neumann-Held (eds), 15–44. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
2010 Three meanings of 'recursion': Key distinctions for biolinguistics. In The Evolution of Human Language: Biolinguistic Perspectives, Richard K. Larson, Viviane Déprez & Hiroko Yamakido (eds), 73–90. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fitch, W. Tecumseh & Hauser, Marc D.
2004 Computational constraints on syntactic processing in a nonhuman primate. Science 303: 377–380. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fitch, W. Tecumseh, Hauser, Marc D. & Chomsky, Noam
2005 The evolution of the language faculty: Clarifications and implications. Cognition 97: 179–210. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A.
1975 The Language of Thought. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny & Pesetsky, David
2005 Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics 31: 1–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frege, Gottlob
1980 [1914] Letter to Jourdain. In Philosophical and Mathematical Correspondence, Gottfried Gabriel (ed), 78–80. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Frey, Werner
2004a The grammar-pragmatics interface and the German prefield. Sprache und Pragmatik 52: 1–39.Google Scholar
2004l. A medial topic position for German. Linguistische Berichte 198: 153–190.Google Scholar
2006 Contrast and movement to the German prefield. In The Architecture of Focus, Valéria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds), 235–264. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Ā-Movement and conventional implicatures: About the grammatical encoding of emphasis in German. Lingua 120: 1416–1435. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Friederici, Angela D., Bahlmann, Jörg, Friedrich, Roland & Makuuchi, Michiru
2011 The neural basis of recursion and complex syntactic hierarchy. Biolinguistics 5: 87–104.Google Scholar
Friederici, Angela D., Bahlmann, Jörg, Heim, Stefan, Schubotz, Ricarda I. & Anwander, Alfred
2006 The brain differentiates human and non-human grammars: Functional localization and structural connectivity. PNAS 103: 2458–2463. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gallego, Ángel J.
2010 Phase Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 152]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk & Cuyckens, Hubert
2007 Introducing cognitive linguistics. In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds), 3–21. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
1995 A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
1996 Jackendoff and construction-based grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 7: 3–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2013a Argument structure constructions versus lexical rules or derivational verb templates. Mind & Language 28: 435–465. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013b Backgrounded constituents cannot be 'extracted'. In Experimental Syntax and Island Effects, Jon Sprouse & Norbert Hornstein (eds), 221–238. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grewendorf, Günther
1989 Ergativity in German. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane
1991 Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert
1997 Precedence among predicates. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1: 3–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris & Vergnaud, Jean-Roger
1987 An Essay on Stress. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K.
1967 Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2. Journal of Linguistics 3: 199–244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hare, Brian, Call, Josep, Agnetta, Bryan & Tomasello, Michael
2000 Chimpanzees know what conspecifics do and do not see. Animal Behavior 59: 771–785. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hare, Brian, Call, Josep & Tomasello, Michael
2001 Do chimpanzees know what conspecifics know? Animal Behavior 61: 139–151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Randy A.
1993 The Linguistics Wars. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hauser, Marc D., Barner, David & O'Donnell, Tim
2007 Evolutionary linguistics: A new look at an old landscape. Language Learning & Development 3: 101–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, Marc D., Chomsky, Noam & Fitch, W. Tecumseh
2002 The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298: 1569–1579. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip & Sag, Ivan
2010 Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language 86: 366–415. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert & Nunes, Jairo
2014 Minimalism and control. In The Routledge Handbook of Syntax, Andrew Carnie, Yosuke Sato & Daniel Siddiqi (eds), 239–263. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert, Nunes, Jairo & Grohmann, Kleanthes K.
2005 Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert & Pietroski, Paul M.
2009 Basic operations: Minimal syntax-semantics. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 8: 113–139.Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia
2007 Separating ‘focus movement’ from focus. In Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 101], Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian & Wendy K. 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, Cheng-Teh James
1982 Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT.
von Humboldt, Wilhelm
1999[1836] The diversity of human language-structure and its influence on the mental development of mankind. In Wilhelm von Humboldt: On Language, Peter Heath (ed), 1–287. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Ibbotson, Paul, Lieven, Elena V.M. & Tomasello, Michael
2013 The attention-grammar interface: Eye-gaze cues structural choice in children and adults. Cognitive Linguistics 24: 457–481. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1972 Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1983 Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1995 The boundaries of the lexicon. In Idioms: Structural and Psychological Perspectives, Martin Everaert, Erik-Jan van der Linden, André Schenk & Rob Schreuder (eds), 133–165. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
1996 Conceptual semantics and cognitive linguistics. Cognitive Linguistics 7: 93–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997 The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2002 Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 Précis of “Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26: 651–665. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 Language, Consciousness, Culture: Essays on Mental Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray & Wittenberg, Eva
2014 What you can say without syntax: A hierarchy of grammatical complexity. In Measuring Grammatical Complexity, Frederick J. Newmeyer & Laurel B. Preston (eds), 65–92. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim
1991 Focus ambiguities. Journal of Semantics 8: 1–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline
2008 Direct compositionality and variable-free semantics: The case of Antecedent Contained Deletion. In Topics in Ellipsis, Kyle Johnson (ed), 30–68. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Janssen, Theo M.V.
1997 Compositionality. In Handbook of Logic and Language, Johan van Benthem & Alice ter Meulen (eds), 417–473. Amsterdam: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jurka, Johannes
2010 The Importance of Being a Complement: CED Effects Revisited. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.
2013 Subject islands in German revisited. In Experimental Syntax and Island Effects, Jon Sprouse & Norbert Hornstein (eds), 265–285. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. & Fodor, Jerry A.
1963 The structure of a semantic theory. Language 39: 170–210. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. & Postal, Paul M.
1964 An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul & Sag, Ivan
2012 A lexical theory of phrasal idioms. Ms., U.C. Berkeley & Stanford University.
Kayne, Richard S.
1994 The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul
1982 Lexical morphology and phonology. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, Linguistic Society of Korea (ed), 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Shige-Yuki
2005 Focusing on the matter of topic: A study of wa and ga in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 14: 1–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert
1996 Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Larson, Bradley
2015 Minimal search as a restriction on Merge. Lingua 156: 57–69. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard
2000 Syntactic Structures Revisited. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2005 Grammar, levels, and biology. In The Cambridge Companion to Chomsky, James McGilvray (ed), 60–83. Cambridge: Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard, Uriagereka, Juan & Boeckx, Cedric
2005 A Course in Minimalist Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lidz, Jeffrey & Williams, Alexander
2009 Constructions on holiday. Cognitive Linguistics 20: 177–189. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lohndal, Terje
2014 Phrase Structure and Argument Structure: A Case Study of the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lohndal, Terje & Samuels, Bridget
2013 Linearizing empty edges. In Syntax and its Limits, Raffaella Folli, Christina Sevdali & Robert Truswell (eds), 66–79. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lüdeling, Anke
2001 On Particle Verbs and Similar Constructions in German. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Lyons, Derek E., Phillips, Webb & Santos, Laurie R.
2005 Motivation is not enough. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28: 708. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maienborn, Claudia
1996 Situation und Lokation: Die Bedeutung lokaler Adjunkte von Verbalprojektionen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Mascaró, Joan
1976 Catalan Phonology and the Phonological Cycle. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
May, Robert
1977 The Grammar of Quantification. PhD dissertation, MIT.
McClelland, James L. & Bybee, Joan L.
2007 Gradience of gradience: A reply to Jackendoff. The Linguistic Review 24: 437–455. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, Andrew
2001 German Double Particles as Preverbs: Morphology and Conceptual Semantics. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Moll, Henrike & Tomasello, Michael
2007 Cooperation and human cognition: The Vygotskian intelligence hypothesis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 362: 639–648. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Gereon
2007 Towards a relativized concept of cyclic linearization. In Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics, Uli Sauerland & Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds), 61–114. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2010 On deriving the CED effects from the PIC. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 35–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan
2002 Complex Predicates: Verbal Complexes, Resultative Constructions, and Particle Verbs in German. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Muysken, Pieter
1982 Parametrizing the notion 'head'. Journal of Linguistic Research 2: 57–75.Google Scholar
Myachykov, Andriy & Tomlin, Russell
2008 Perceptual priming and structural choice in Russian sentence production. Journal of Cognitive Science 6: 31–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Myachykov, Andriy, Tomlin, Russell S. & Posner, Michael I.
2005 Attention and empirical studies of grammar. The Linguistic Review 22: 347–364. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Narita, Hiroki
2014 Endocentric Structuring of Projection-free Syntax [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 218]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, Ad & Szendrői, Kriszta
2004 Superman sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 149–159. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Newman, Stanley S.
1946 On the stress system of English. Word 2: 171–187. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J.
2009 On split CPs and the 'perfectness' of language. In Dislocated Elements in Discourse: Syntactic, Semantic, and Pragmatic Perspectives, Benjamin Shaer, Philippa Cook, Werner Frey & Claudia Maienborn (eds), 114–140. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Sag, Ivan & Wasow, Thomas
1994 Idioms. Language 70: 491–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, Jairo
2012 Sideward movement: Triggers, timing, and outputs. In Ways of Structure Building, Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria & Vidal Valmala (eds), 114–142. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perruchet, Pierre & Rey, Arnaud
2005 Does the mastery of center-embedded linguistic structures distinguish humans from nonhuman primates? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12: 307–313. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pietroski, Paul M.
2005 Events and Semantic Architecture. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2007 Systematicity via monadicity. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 7: 343–374.Google Scholar
2008 Minimalist meaning, internalist interpretation. Biolinguistics 2: 317–341.Google Scholar
2011 Minimal semantic instructions. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism, Cedric Boeckx (ed), 472–498. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Pijper, Jan R. de & Sanderman, Angelien A.
1994 On the perceptual strength of prosodic boundaries and its relation to suprasegmental cues. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 96: 2037–2047. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven & Bloom, Paul
1990 Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13: 707–727. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves
1989 Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.Google Scholar
Putnam, Michael T. & Stroik, Thomas S.
2010 Syntactic relations in Survive-minimalism. In Exploring Crash-Proof Grammars, Michael T. Putnam (ed), 143–166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian & Svenonius, Peter
2014 Deriving the functional hierarchy. Language Sciences 46: 152–174. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, Nancy A.
2005 On the status of linguistics as a cognitive science. The Linguistic Review 22: 117–133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
1997 The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 On the cartography of syntactic structures. In The Structure of CP and IP, Luigi Rizzi (ed), 3–15. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2013 Notes on cartography and further explanation. Probus 25: 197–226.Google Scholar
2014 Syntactic cartography and the syntacticisation of scope-discourse semantics. In Mind, Values, and Metaphysics, Anne Reboul (ed), 517–533. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter S.
1967 The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Samuels, Bridget
2011 Phonological Architecture: A Biolinguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sauerland, Uli & Trotzke, Andreas
2011 Biolinguistic perspectives on recursion: Introduction to the special issue. Biolinguistics 5: 1–9.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli & von Stechow, Arnim
2001 The syntax-semantics interface. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioural Sciences, Neil J. Smelser & Paul B. Baltes (eds), 15412–15418. Oxford: Pergamon Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scheer, Tobias
2011 A Guide to Morphosyntax-Phonology Interface Theories. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schein, Barry
. In press. Conjunction Reduction Redux. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Searle, John R.
1990 Collective intentions and actions. In Intentions in Communication, Philip R. Cohen, Jerry Morgan & Martha E. Pollack (eds), 401–415. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth
1986 On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3: 371–405. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sells, Peter
2001 Structure, Alignment and Optimality in Swedish. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Shannon, Claude E. & Weaver, Warren
1949 The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana IL: Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle & Hinzen, Wolfram
2011 Moving towards the edge. Linguistic Analysis 37: 405–458.Google Scholar
Shima, Etsuro
2000 A preference for Move over Merge. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 375–385. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Skopeteas, Stavros & Fanselow, Gisbert
2011 Focus and the exclusion of alternatives: On the interaction of syntactic structure with pragmatic inference. Lingua 121: 1693–1706. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Southgate, Victoria, van Maanen, Catharine & Csibra, Gergely
2007 Infant pointing: Communication to cooperate or communication to learn? Child Development 78: 735–740. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stepanov, Arthur
2007 The end of CED? Minimalism and extraction domains. Syntax 10: 80–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stiebels, Barbara & Wunderlich, Dieter
1994 Morphology feeds syntax: The case of particle verbs. Linguistics 32: 913–968. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stroik, Thomas S. & Putnam, Michael T.
2013 The Structural Design of Language. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thiersch, Craig
1978 Topics in German Syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Tomasello, Michael
2008 Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael & Call, Josep
1997 Primate Cognition. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael, Carpenter, Malinda, Call, Josep, Behne, Tanya & Moll, Henrike
2005 Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28: 675–735. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael, Carpenter, Malinda & Liszkowski, Ulf
2007 A new look at infant pointing. Child Development 78: 705–722. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael & Vaish, Amrisha
2013 Origins of human cooperation and morality. Annual Review of Psychology 64: 231–255. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomioka, Satoshi
2007 Information structure as information-based partition. In Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure, Caroline Féry, Gisbert Fanselow & Manfred Krifka (eds), 97–107. Potsdam: Potsdam University Press.Google Scholar
Trotzke, Andreas
2008 Rekursive Syntax & FLN? Eine kritische Betrachtung neuerer Diskussionen zur menschlichen Sprachfähigkeit innerhalb des Generativismus. MA thesis, University of Freiburg.
2012 Review of Lieven Danckaert, Latin Embedded Clauses: The Left Periphery. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. The LINGUIST List: 23.4367.Google Scholar
Trotzke, Andreas, Bader, Markus & Frazier, Lyn
2013 Third factors and the performance interface in language design. Biolinguistics 7: 1–34.Google Scholar
Trotzke, Andreas & Lahne, Antje
2011 Recursion as derivational layering: An amendment to Zwart. Biolinguistics 5: 335–346.Google Scholar
Trotzke, Andreas, Quaglia, Stefano & Wittenberg, Eva
. In press. Topicalization in German particle verb constructions: The role of semantic transparency. Linguistische Berichte.
Trotzke, Andreas & Zwart, Jan-Wouter
2014 The complexity of narrow syntax: Minimalism, representational economy, and simplest Merge. In Measuring Grammatical Complexity, Frederick J. Newmeyer & Laurel B. Preston (eds), 128–147. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trotzke, Andreas & Turco, Giuseppina
2015 The grammatical reflexes of emphasis: Evidence from German wh-questions. Ms., University of Konstanz & University of Stuttgart.
Truckenbrodt, Hubert
2007 The syntax-phonology interface. In The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology, Paul de Lacey (ed), 435–456. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Truswell, Robert
2007a Locality of Wh-movement and the Individuation of Events. PhD dissertation, UCL.
2007b Tense, events, and extraction from adjuncts. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 43: 233–247.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan
1999 Multiple spell-out. In Working Minimalism, Samuel D. Epstein & Norbert Hornstein (eds), 251–282. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2011 Derivational cycles. In Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism, Cedric Boeckx (ed), 239–259. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Vallduví, Enric & Vilkuna, Maria
1998 On rheme and kontrast. In The Limits of Syntax, Peter W. Culicover & Louise McNally (eds), 79–108. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry
2006 On the parallel organization of linguistic components. Lingua 116: 657–688. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, Arie
2010 What do you think is the proper place of recursion? Conceptual and empirical issues. In Recursion and Human Language, Harry van der Hulst (ed), 93–110. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Michael
2005 Prosody and Recursion. PhD dissertation, MIT.
2010 Prosody and recursion in coordinate structures and beyond. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28: 183–237. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 Phonological evidence in syntax. In Syntax - Theory and Analysis: An International Handbook, Vol. 2, Tibor Kiss & Artemis Alexiadou (eds), 1154–1198. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin
2003 Representation Theory. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Winkler, Susanne
2005 Ellipsis and Focus in Generative Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig
1961[1921] Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Trans. David F. Pears and Brian F. McGuinness. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Zeller, Jochen
2001 Particle Verbs and Local Domains [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 41]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria L.
1998 Prosody, Focus, and Word Order. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter
1998 Where is syntax? Syntactic aspects of left dislocation in Dutch and English. In The Limits of Syntax, Peter W. Culicover & Louise McNally (eds), 365–393. San Diego CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
2009a Prospects for top-down derivation. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 8: 161–187.Google Scholar
2009b Uncharted territory? Towards a non-cartographic account of Germanic syntax. In Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 141], Artemis Alexiadou, Jorge Hankamer, Thomas McFadden, Justin Nuger & Florian Schäfer (eds), 59–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Recursion in language: A layered-derivation approach. Biolinguistics 5: 43–56.Google Scholar
2015 Top-down derivation, recursion, and the model of grammar. In Syntactic Complexity across Interfaces, Andreas Trotzke & Josef Bayer (eds), 25–42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Subjects

Linguistics

Syntax
Generative linguistics
Pragmatics
Theoretical linguistics
Semantics
BIC Subject: CFK – Grammar, syntax
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2015024565 | Marc record