Review published in:
Studies in Language
Vol. 21:3 (1997) ► pp. 655667
References
Abraham, Werner
1995 “Morphological Case: no need for functional projections in German”. Yearbook Groningen.Google Scholar
Besten, Hans den
1983 “On the Interaction of Root Transformations and Lexical Deletive Rules”. In: On the formal syntax of the Westgermania Abraham, W. (ed.), 47–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1981Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1986Barriers. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1989 “Some notes on economy and derivation”. In: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 101; also appears as chapter 2 in Chomsky (1995).Google Scholar
1992 “A minimalist program for linguistic theory”. In: MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 11; also appear as chapter 3 in Chomsky (1995).Google Scholar
1995 “Categories and transformations”, chapter 4 in The minimalist program, Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van
1993The rise of functional categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van
1987Syntactic Case and morphological Case in the history of English. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul
1994 “The rise of positional licensing in Germanic”, talk Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda and Sportiche, Dominique
1991 “The position of subjects”. Lingua 851:211–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Platzack, Crister
1994 “Small pro, weak AGR and syntactic differences in Scandinavian”, Paper read at the 9th Comparative Germanic Syntax Workshop, Cambridge, Mass.
Rizzi, Luigi
1990 “Speculations on verb-second”. In: Mascaro, J. and Nespor, M. (eds), Grammar in progress, 375–385. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thráinsson, H.
1996 “On the (non)-universality of functional categories”, to appear in: Abraham, Werner et al. (eds), Minimal ideas: Syntactic studies in the minimalist framework. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar