Review published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 36:1 (2012) ► pp.215224
Anderson, S. R.
1992A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beard, R.
1995Lexeme-morpheme base morphology. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Bever, T. G.
1970The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In Cognition and the development of language, ed. John R. Hayes. 227–360. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
1975Functional explanations require independently motivated functional theories. In Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism, eds. Robin E. Grossman, L. James San, and Timothy J. Vance. 580–635. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
2003Deconstructing functionalist explanations of linguistic universals. In Formal approaches to function in grammar: In honor of Eloise Jelinek, eds. Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley, and MaryAnn Willie. 333–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C.
2009Language universals: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. In Of minds and language: The Basque Country encounter with Noam Chomsky, eds. Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, Juan Uriagereka, and Pello Salaburu. 195–99. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. W.
1970On complementizers: Toward a syntactic theory of complement types. Foundations of Language 61: 297–321.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.
1975Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
1980On cognitive structures and their development: A reply to Piaget. In Language and learning: The debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky, ed. Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini. 35–54. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.Google Scholar
1981Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
2002On nature and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 361: 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007Of minds and language. Biolinguistics 11: 9–27.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
1990Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
2003Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science 71: 219–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, M., and A. Marantz
1993Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from Building 20: Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, eds. Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser. 111–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hauser, M. D., N. Chomsky, and W. Tecumseh Fitch
2002The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 2981: 1569–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, J., and J. Kulas
1985Anaphora and definite descriptions: Two applications of game-theoretical semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamp, H.
1981A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Formal methods in the study of language, eds. Jeroen Groenendijk, Theo M. V. Janssen, and Martin B. J. Stokhof. 277–322. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre Tracts.Google Scholar
Koopman, H., and D. Sportiche
1991The position of subjects. Lingua 751: 211–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koster, J., and R. May
1982On the constituency of infinitives. Language 581: 116–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montague, R.
1974Formal philosophy: Selected papers (R. Thomason. ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J.
2003Review of On Nature and language by Noam Chomsky; The language organ: Linguistics as cognitive physiology by Stephen R. Anderson and David W. Lightfoot; Language in a Darwinian perspective by Bernard H. Bichakjian. Language 791: 583–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ed. 1988aLinguistics: The Cambridge survey, volume 4: Language: The Sociocultural context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
ed. 1988bLinguistics: The Cambridge survey, volume 3: Language: Psychological and biological aspects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
ed. 1988cLinguistics: The Cambridge survey, volume 2: Linguistic theory: Extensions and implications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
ed. 1988dLinguistics: The Cambridge survey, volume 1: Linguistic theory: Foundations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S., and R. Jackendoff
2005The faculty of language: What’s special about it? Cognition 951: 201–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Postal, P. M.
1968Aspects of phonological theory. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Rouveret, A., and J. -R. Vergnaud
1980Specifying reference to the subject: French causatives and conditions on representations. Linguistic Inquiry 111: 97–202.Google Scholar
Sadock, J. M.
1991Autolexical syntax: A theory of parallel grammatical components. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A., T. Wasow, and E. M. Bender
2003Syntactic theory: A formal introduction (2nd ed.). CSLI Lecture Notes, vol. 1521. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R.
1972/1974Chomsky’s revolution in linguistics. In On Noam Chomsky: Critical essays, ed. Gilbert Harman. 2–33. Originally published in New York Review of Books, 16–24. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M., and T. Bynon
1995Approaches to language typology: A conspectus. In Approaches to language typology, eds. Masayoshi Shibatani and Theodora Bynon. 1–25. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Siewierska, A.
1991Functional grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Trier, J.
1932Sprachliche Felder. Zeitschrift für deutsche Bildung 81: 417–27.Google Scholar