Review published in:
Studies in Language
Vol. 20:3 (1996) ► pp. 696708
References
Abraham, W.
1992 “Clausal focus versus discourse rhema in German: A programmatic view”. In: Gilbers and Looyenga (eds), Language and Cognition. Yearbook University of Groningen 1–18. Groningen.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.
1989 “Some notes on economy of derivation and representation”. Ms. (Also in Freidin, R. (ed.) 1991 Principles and parameters in comparative grammar 417–54. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.)Google Scholar
1992 “A Minimalist program for linguistic theory”. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 11].Google Scholar
Cinque, G.
1990/93 “The null hypothesis of phrasal stress”. Linguistic Inquiry 24(1).Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J.
1981 “Form, function and the language acquisition device”. In: Baker, C.; and McCarthy, J. (eds), The logical problem of language acquisition 165–182. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S.
1994The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Larson, R. K.
1988 “On the double object construction”. Linguistic Inquiry 191:335–391.Google Scholar
1990 “Double object revisited”. Linguistic Inquiry 211:589–632.Google Scholar
Lenerz, J.
1993 “Zur Syntax der Pronomina im Deutschen”. In: Reis, M. (ed.), Wortstellung und Informationsstruktur. Tübingen: Niemeyer [Linguistische Arbeiten 2571].Google Scholar
Ouhalla, J.
1991Functional categories and parametric variation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D.
1987 “WH-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding”. In: Reuland, E.; and ter Meulen, A. (eds), The representation of (in-)definiteness 98–129. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pollack, J. -Y.
1989 “Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP”. Linguistic Inquiry 201: 365–424.Google Scholar
Wegener, H.
1985Der Dativ im heutigen Deutsch. Tübingen: Narr [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 281].Google Scholar
1990 “Der Dativ – ein struktureller Kasus?” In: Fanselow, G.; and Felix, S. Strukturen und Merkmale syntaktischer Kategorien 70–103. Tübingen: Narr, 70–103 [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 391].Google Scholar