Cover not available
Review published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 13:1 (1989) ► pp.171–193
Book review

Dan Isaac Slobin & Karl Zimmer (eds). Studies in Turkish linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1986.

Reviewed by
 | Syracuse University and MIT
Published online: 1 January 1989
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.13.1.07kor
References (23)
References
Aissen, J.; and J. Hankamer. 1980. “Lexical extension and grammatical transformations”. In: Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. 238–249.Google Scholar
Brendemoen, B.; and E. A. Csató. 1987. “A syntactic analysis of Turkish gerundial clauses with subject control”. In: Boeschoten and Verhoeven (eds). 121–135.Google Scholar
Boeschoten, H. E.; and L. Th. Verhoeven (eds). 1987. Studies on Modern Turkish. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
George, L.; and J. Kornfilt. 1977. “Infinitival Double Passives in Turkish”. In: Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, 65–79.Google Scholar
. 1981. “Finiteness and boundedness in Turkish”. In: Heny (ed.). 105–127.Google Scholar
Gibson, J.; and I. Özkaragöz. 1981. “The syntactic nature of the Turkish causative construction”. In: Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 83–98.Google Scholar
Hankamer, J.; and L. Knecht. 1976. “The role of the subject/non-subject distinction in determining the choice of the relative clause participle in Turkish”. In: Hankamer and Aissen (eds). 197–221.Google Scholar
Hankamer, J.; and J. Aissen (eds). 1976. Harvard studies in syntax and semantics, Vol. 21.Google Scholar
Heny, F. (ed.). 1981. Binding and filtering. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. 1975. “Some universals of passive in relational grammar”. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 340–352.Google Scholar
Knecht, L. 1986. Subject and Object in Turkish. MIT Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Özkaragöz, İ. 1980. “Evidence from Turkish for the unaccusative hypothesis”. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. 411–422.Google Scholar
1986. The relational structure of Turkish syntax. UC San Diego Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. 1978. “Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis”. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. 157–189.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D.; and P. Postal. 1983. “Toward a universal characterization of passivization”. In: Perlmutter and Postal (eds). 3–29.Google Scholar
, (eds.) 1983. Studies in relational grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Postal, P. 1986. Studies of passive clauses. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. MIT Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Sebüktekin, H. 1971. Turkish-English contrastive analysis. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. (ed.). 1976. Syntax and Semantics 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sobin, N. 1985. “On case assignment in Ukrainian morphological passive constructions”. Linguistic Inquiry. 16.4.649–662.Google Scholar
Zimmer, K. 1976. “Some Constraints on Turkish Causativization”. In: Shibatani (ed.). Syntax and Semantics 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions. New York: Academic Press. 399–412.Google Scholar