Endocentric Structuring of Projection-free Syntax

| Nihon University
Hardbound – Available
ISBN 9789027257017 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
e-Book –
ISBN 9789027269621 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
Endocentric Structuring of Projection-free Syntax puts forward a novel theory of syntax that rigidly adheres to the principle of Minimal Computation, in which a number of traditional but extraneous stipulations such as referential indices and representational labels/projections are eliminated. It specifically articulates the overarching hypothesis that every syntactic object is composed by recursive, phase-by-phase embedding of the endocentric structure {H, α}, where H is a head lexical item and α is another syntactic object (order irrelevant). The proposed mechanism achieves both theory-internal simplicity and broad empirical coverage at the same time, advancing a radically reduced conception of endocentricty/headedness while deriving a number of empirically grounded constraints on human language.
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 218]  2014.  xii, 268 pp.
Publishing status: Available
© John Benjamins Publishing Company
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.218
Table of Contents
List of abbreviations
ix
Acknowledgments
xi–xii
1. Preface
1–5
2. Bare phrase structure and cyclic derivation by phase, in Light of Minimal Computation
7–63
3. Minimal head detection in projection-free syntax
65–139
4. Cyclic Spell-Out of projection-free syntax
141–190
5. Full Interpretation all the way through
191–225
6. Conclusion
227–231
Appendix: List of propositions
233–240
References
241–258
Author index
259–262
Subject index
263–268
“This fascinating inquiry covers a wide range of problems, many of which have received intensive study, others that open new directions. It proceeds with careful and perceptive analysis and provides original and challenging solutions and new ideas. It is a very welcome contribution that is sure to be deservedly influential.”
“Narita makes a bold proposal to derive the endocentric properties of natural language sentence structure from a theory that is truly exemplary of the spirit of minimalism. A must-read for anyone wishing to keep abreast of the latest developments in the art of doing theoretical syntax.”
“Hiroki Narita is one of the most promising theoretical syntacticians in younger generations, and Endocentric Structuring of Projection-free Syntax eloquently tells us why he should be so described. Along the lines of Chomsky’s most recent ideas of divorcing projection/labeling from the principles of construction of linguistic expressions, the book investigates in detail various essential properties of structure-building in human language, and makes a number of stimulating proposals within the projection-free system of syntax in conjunction with the law of minimal computation. Quite an impressive piece of work.”
“ Endocentric Structuring of Projection-free Syntax is an example of theoretical syntax at its best. Narita pushes the limits of our understanding of labeling and merge, shedding light on core aspects of the human language faculty. This book demonstrates the power of minimalist considerations.”
References

References

Abels, Klaus
2001 Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition-stranding. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Abels, Klaus & Neeleman, Ad
2009 Universal 20 without the LCA. In Merging Features: Computation, Interpretation and Acquisition, Josep M. Brucart, Anna Gavarró, & Jaume Solà (eds), 60–80. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Abney, Steven Paul
1987 The noun phrase in its sentential aspect. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Ackema, Peter & Neeleman, Ad
2002 Effects of short-term storage in processing rightward movement. In Storage and Computation in the Langauge Faculty: Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, Sieb Nooteboom, Fred Weerman, & Frank Wijnen (eds), 219–256. Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Agbayani, Brian, Golston, Chris, & Ishii, Toru
2012 Prosodic scrambling. In Proceedings of the 5th Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics Conference (FAJL5), Matthew A. Tucker, Anie Thompson, Oliver Northrup, & Ryan Benett (eds), 15–24. MITWPL.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Anagnostopoulou, Elena
2001 The subject-in-situ generalization and the role of case in driving computations. Linguistic Inquiry 32(2): 193–231. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alrenga, Peter
2005 A sentential subject asymmetry in English and its implications for complement selection. Syntax 8: 175–207. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Asbury, Anna
2008 The Morphosyntax of Case and Adpositions. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C.
1988 Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1996 The Polysynthesis Parameter. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2003 Lexical Categories: Verbs Nouns and Adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barwise, Jon & Cooper, Robin
1981 Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–209. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Belletti, Adriana
2001 ‘Inversion’ as focalization. In Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, Aafke Hulk & Jean-Yves Pollock (eds), 60–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Berwick, Robert C., Pietroski, Paul, Yankama, Beracah, & Chomsky, Noam
2011 Poverty of the stimulus revisited. Cognitive Science 35: 1207–1242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
den Besten, Hans & Webelhuth, Gert
1990 Stranding. In Scrambling and Barriers, Günther Grewendorfand & Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds), 77–92. New York: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bever, Thomas G. & Poeppel, David
2010 Analysis by synthesis: A (re-)emerging program of research for language and vision. Biolinguistics 4(2–3): 174–200.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, Holmberg, Anders, & Roberts, Ian
2008 Structure and linearization in disharmonic word orders. In Proceedings of WCCFL26, Somerville, MA., 96–104. Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Bittner, Maria & Hale, Ken
1996a The structural determination of Case and agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 1–68.Google Scholar
1996b Ergativity: Toward a theory of a heterogeneous class. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 531–604.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard
1933 Language. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David
1995 Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inflection. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David & Brown, S.
1997 Inter-arboreal operations: Head-movement and the extension requirement. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 345–356.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric
2003 Islands and Chains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008a Bare Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2008b A note on object EPP. ms. Harvard University.
2008c Understanding Minimalist Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2009 On the locus of asymmetry in UG. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 8: 41–53.Google Scholar
2010a Defeating lexicocentrism. ms. ICREA/UAB. http://​ling​.auf​.net​/lingBuzz​/ 001130.
2010b A tale of two minimalisms: Reflections on the plausibility of crash-proof syntax, and its free-merge alternative. In Exploring Crash-proof Grammars, Michael Putnam (ed), 105–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Approaching parameters from below. In The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty, Anna Maria Di Sciullo & Cedric Boeckx (eds), 205–221. Cambridge, MA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2012 Phases beyond explanatory adequacy. In Phases: Developing the Framework, Ángel J. Gallego (ed), 45–66. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2014 Elementary Syntactic Structures: Prospects of a Feature-free Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric & Grohmann, Kleanthes K.
2007 Putting phases into perspective. Syntax 10: 204–222. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric & Stjepanović, Sandra
2001 Head-ing toward PF. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 345–355. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric & Uriagereka, Juan
2007 Minimalism. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds), 541–573. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit
2005 Structuring Sense, Volume I: In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Borgonovo, Claudia & Neeleman, Ad
2000 Transparent Adjuncts. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 45: 199–224.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko
1997 The Syntax of Nonfinite Complementation: An Economy Approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2002a A-movement and the EPP. Syntax 5: 167–218. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002b On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 351–383. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of np. Studia Linguistica 59: 1–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 589–644. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 What will you have, DP or NP? In Proceedings of NELS37, Emily Elfner & Martin Walkow (eds). Amherst, MA.: GLSA.Google Scholar
Brame, Michael
1981 The general theory of binding and fusion. Linguistic Analysis 7.3: 277–325.Google Scholar
1982 The head-selector theory of lexical specifications and the nonexistence of coarse categories. Linguistic Analysis 10.4: 321–325.Google Scholar
Bresnan, John W.
1970 On complementizers: Toward a syntactic theory of complement types. Foundations of Language 6: 297–321.Google Scholar
1972 Theory of complementation in English syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Brody, Michael
2000 Mirror theory: Syntactic representation in perfect syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 29–56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cable, Seth
2007 The grammar of Q. PhD dissertation, MIT.
2010 The Grammar of Q: Q-Particles, Wh-Movement, and PiedPiping. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caha, Pavel
2009 The nanosyntax of case. PhD dissertation, University of Toromsø.
Carnie, Andrew
2002 Syntax: A Generative Introduciton. Blackwell.Google Scholar
2008 Constituent Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carstens, Vicki
2000 Concord in minimalist theory. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 319–355. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 Rethinking complementizer agreement: Agree with a Case checked goal. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 393–412. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cattell, Ray
1976 Constraints on movement rules. Language 52: 18–50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo
2007 Some preliminary remarks on a ‘weak’ theory of linearization. Annali Online di Ferrara Lettere 1: 1–13. http://​eprints​.unife​.it​/annali​/lettere​/2007vol1​/indice​.htm.Google Scholar
2013 Backward dependencies must be short: A unified account of the Final-over-Final and the Right Roof Constraints and its consequences for the syntax/morphology interface. In Challenges to Linearization, Theresa Biberauer & Ian Roberts (eds), 57–92. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo & Donati, Caterina
2010a A head is a head is a head. ms. University of Milan-Bicocca and University of Rome-La Sapienza.
2010b Relabeling heads: A unified accout for relativization structures. ms. University of Milan-Bicocca and University of Rome-La Sapienza. http://​ling​.auf​.net​/lingBuzz​/001014.
Ceplová, Markéta
2001 Minimalist islands: Restricting P-features. ms. MIT.
Chametzky, Robert A.
2000 Phrase Structure: From GB to Minimalism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro
1998 Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6: 339–405. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1955/1975b The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. ms. Harvard University, 1955. Published in part in 1975, New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
1957 Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. 2nd edition (2002).Google Scholar
1959 On certain formal properties of grammars. Information and Control 2: 137–167. Reprinted in R. Duncan Luce, Robert R. Bush, and Eugene Galanter, eds. (1965), Readings in Mathematical Psychology, Volume II, 125–155, New York: John Wiley and Sons. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1966/2002/2009a Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought. New York: Harper & Row. 2nd edition with new introduction by James McGilvray, Christchurch NZ: Cybereditions; 3rd edition supplemented with new introduction by James McGilvray, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1968 Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovitch. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1970 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 Anderson & Paul Kiparsky (eds), 232–286. New York: Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
1975a Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
1977 Essays on Form and Interpretation. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
1980a On binding. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 1–46.Google Scholar
1980b On cognitive structures and their development. In Language and Learning: The Debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky, Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini (ed), 35–52. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
1981 Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1982 Some Concepts and Consequences of the Government and Binding Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1986a Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1986b Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
1987 Generative Grammar: Its Basis, Development and Prospects. Studies in English Linguistics and Literature. Kyoto: Kyoto University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
1993 A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Ken Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds), 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1994 Bare phrase structure. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5: Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT. Reprinted in G. Webelhuth, ed. (1995), Malden: Blackwell, Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program, 383–439.Google Scholar
1995a Language and nature. Mind 104. 413: 1–61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995b The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000a Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels, & Juan Uriagereka (eds), 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000b New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001 Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed), 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2004 Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Adriana Belletti (ed), 104–131. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2005 Three factors in the language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007a Approaching UG from below. In Interfaces + Recursion = Language?: Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Semantics, Uli Sauerland & Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds), 1–29. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2007b Biolinguistic explorations: Design, development, evolution. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 15(1): 1–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007c Of minds and language. Biolinguistics 1: 9–27.Google Scholar
2008 On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Robert Freidin, Carlos Otero, & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2009b The mysteries of nature: How deeply hidden? The Journal of Philosophy 16(4): 167–200. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 Introduction. In Gengokisoronshu [Foundations of Biolinguistics: Selected Writings], Naoki Fukui (ed), 17–26. Iwanami Shoten.Google Scholar
2013 Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Lasnik, Howard
1977 Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8(3): 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. Walter de Gruyter. Reprinted in Chomsky (1995b).Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
1993 A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 239–298.Google Scholar
1999 Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2002 Functional Structure in DP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2005 Deriving Greenberg’s universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 315–332. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo & Rizzi, Luigi
(eds) 2010 Mapping Spatial PPs: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 6. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Chris
2002 Eliminating labels. In Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, Samuel David Epstein & T. Daniel Seely (eds), 42–64. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Corver, Norbert
2006 Freezing effects. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax II, Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 383–406. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crain, Stephen & Nakayama, Mineharu
1987 Structure dependence in grammar formation. Language 63: 522–543. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W.
1982 Syntax. New York/London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel
1995 Binding, expletives and levels. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 347–354.Google Scholar
Donati, Caterina
2006 On wh-head-movement. In Wh-movement: Moving on, Lisa L.-S. Cheng & N. Corver (eds), 21–46. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Embick, David & Marantz, Alec
2008 Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 1–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Emonds, Joseph
2009 Valuing V features and N features: What adjuncts tell us about case, agreement, and syntax in general. In Merging Features: Computation, Interpretation and Acquisition, Josep M. Brucart, Anna Gavarró, & Jaume Solà (eds), 194–214. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E.
1970 Root and structure-preserving transformations. PhD dissertation, MIT.
1976 A Transformational Approach to English Syntax: Root, Structure-preserving, and Local Transformations. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Endo, Yoshio
1996 Right dislocation. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 29: Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 2, 1–20. MITWPL.Google Scholar
Epstein, Samuel David
1999 Un-principled syntax: The derivation of syntactic relations. In Working Minimalism, Samuel David Epstein & Norbert Hornstein (eds), 317–345. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2009. The unification of theta relations: How TRANSFER renders SpecvP a theta marked complement. ms. University of Michigan.
Epstein, Samuel David, Groat, Erich M., Kawashima, Ruriko, & Kitahara, Hisatsugu
1998 A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Samuel David, Kitahara, Hisatsugu, & Seely, T. Daniel
2010 Uninterpretable features; what are they and what do they do? In Exploring Crash-proof Grammars, Michael Putnam (ed), 124–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 Structure building that can’t be! In Ways of Structure Building, Myriam UribeEtxebarria & Vidal Valmala (eds), 253–270. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Samuel David & Seely, T. Daniel
2002 Rule applications as cycles in a level-free syntax. In Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, Samuel David Epstein & T. Daniel Seely (eds), 65–89. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 Transformations and Derivations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fiengo, Robert & May, Robert
1994 Indices and Identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google 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: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
2008 LOT2: The Language of Thought Revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny & Nissenbaum, Jon
1999 Extraposition and scope: A case for overt QR. In Proceedings of WCCFL 18, Sonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason D. Haugen, & Peter Norquest (eds), 132–144. Somerville, MA.: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny & Pesetsky, David
2005 Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics 31: 1–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frampton, John & Gutmann, Sam
2000 Agreement is feature sharing. ms. Northeastern University.
Freidin, Robert & Lasnik, Howard
1981 Disjoint refernece and wh-trace. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 39–53.Google Scholar
Fujita, Koji
2007 Facing the logical problem of language evolution. English Linguistics 24(1): 78–108. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 A prospect for evolutionary adequacy: Merge and the evolution and development of human language. Biolinguistics 3(2–3): 128–153.Google Scholar
Fukui, Naoki
1986/1995b A theory of category projection and its applications. PhD dissertation, MIT. Published in 1995 with revisions as Theory of Projection in Syntax, Kurosio Publishers and CSLI publications.
1988 Deriving the differences between English and Japanese: A case study in parametric syntax. English Linguistics 5: 249–270. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993 Parameters and optionality. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 399–420. Reprinted in Fukui (2006).Google Scholar
1995a The principles-and-parameters approach: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. In Approaches to Language Typology, Masayoshi Shibatani & Theodora Bynon (eds), 327–371. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reprinted in Fukui (2006).Google Scholar
1996 On the nature of economy in language. Cognitive Studies (Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society), 3: 51–71. Reprinted in Fukui (2006).Google Scholar
1999 An A-over-A perspective on locality. In Linguistics: In Search of the Human Mind: A Festschrift for Kazuko Inoue, Masatake Muraki & Enoch Iwamoto (eds), 109–127. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. Reprinted in Fukui (2006).Google Scholar
2001 Phrase structure. In The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds), 374–406. Oxford: Blackwell. Reprinted in Fukui (2006). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 Theoretical Comparative Syntax: Studies in Macroparameters. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
2008 Gengo-no kihonenzan-o meguru oboegaki [A note concerning basic operations in language]. In Gengokenkyuu-no Genzai: Keishiki-to Imi-no Intaafeisu [The State of the Art in Linguistic Research: The Syntax-Semantics Interface], Yoshiaki Kaneko, Akira Kikuchi, & Daiko Takahashi (eds), 1–21. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
2011 Merge and bare phrase structure. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism, Cedric Boeckx (ed), 73–95. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fukui, Naoki & Kasai, Hironobu
2004 Spelling-Out scrambling. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 4.1: 109–141. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fukui, Naoki & Sakai, Hiromu
2003 The visibility guideline for functional categories: Verb raising in Japanese and related issues. Lingua 113: 321–375. Reprinted in Fukui (2006). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fukui, Naoki & Speas, Margaret
1986 Specifiers and projection. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 128–172. Reprinted in Fukui (2006).Google Scholar
Fukui, Naoki & Takano, Yuji
1998 Symmetry in syntax: Merge and Demerge. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7: 27–86. Reprinted in Fukui (2006). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 Nominal structure: An extension of the Symmetry Principle. In The Derivation of VO and OV, Peter Svenonius (ed), 219–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Reprinted in Fukui (2006). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fukui, Naoki & Zushi, Mihoko
2008 On certain differences between noun phrases and clauses. In Essays on Nominal Determination, Henrik Høeg Müller & Alex Klinge (eds), 265–285. John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gallego, Ángel J.
2007 Phase theory and parametric variation. PhD dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
2010 Phase Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gambell, Timothy & Yang, Charles D.
2003 Scope and limits of statistical learning in word segmentation. In Proceedings of NELS 34, 29–30.
Georgopoulos, Carol Perkins
1991 Syntactic Variables: Resumptive Pronouns and Binding in Palauan. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goto, Nobu
2010 Some consequences of feature inheritance. In English Literature, Regional Branches Combined Issue III, 113–136. The Tohoku Branch of the English Literary Society of Japan.Google Scholar
2011 Feature-inheritance: Its effects on Agree, Move, and Delete. PhD dissertation, Tohoku Gakuin University.
Graffi, Giorgio
2001 200 Years of Syntax: A Critical Survey. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane B.
1982 Subcategorization and grammatical relations. In Subjects and Other Subjects: Proceedings of the Harvard Conference on the Representation of Grammatical Relations, Annie Zaenen (ed), 35–55. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
1991/2005 Extended projection. In Words and Structure, 1–73 (final version of the manuscript written in 1991). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Groat, Erich
1997 A derivational program for syntactic theory. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.
1999 Raising the case of expletives. In Working Minimalism, Samuel David Epstein & Norbert Hornstein (eds), 27–44. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Groat, Erich & O’Neil, John
1996 Spell-Out at the LF interface: Achieving a unified syntactic computational system in the minimalist framework. In Minimal Ideas: Syntactic Studies in the Minimalist Framework, Werner Abraham, Samuel David Epstein, Höskuldur Thráinsson, & Jan-Wouter Zwart (eds), 113–139. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guimarães, Maximiliano
2000 In defense of vacuous projections in bare phrase structure. University Of Maryland Working Papes In Linguistics 9: 90–115.Google Scholar
Hagstrom, Paul
1998 Decomposing questions. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Haider, Hubert
1990 Topicalization and other puzzles of German syntax. In Scrambling and Barriers, Gunther Grewendorf & Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds), 93–111. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel J.
1993 On argument structure and the lexical expression of grammatical relations. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Ken Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds), 53–110. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2002 Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec
1993 Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Ken Hale & Samuel J. Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1994 Some key features of Distributed Morphology. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 275–288.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Stevens, Kenneth
1959 Analysis by synthesis. In Proceedings of Seminar on Speech Compression and Processing, Vol. 2, paper D7.Google Scholar
1963 Speech recognition: A model and a program for research. IRE Transactions on Information Theory 8: 155–159. [Reprinted in Morris Halle. 2002. From Memory to Speech and Back. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.]. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge & Knecht, Laura
1976 The role of the subject/non-subject distinction in determining the choice of relative clause participle in Turkish. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society 6 Montréal WPL: 123–135.Google 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(5598): 1569–1579. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heck, Fabian
2008 On Pied-piping: Wh-movement and beyond. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 On certain properties of pied-piping. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 75–111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene & Kratzer, Angelika
1998 Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline
1995 Asymmetries in reconstruction. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 547–570.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James
1985 On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 547–594.Google Scholar
Hinzen, Wolfram
2006 Mind Design and Minimal Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 An Essay on Names and Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, Ken
2005 Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: Agreement and clausal architecture. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Hiraiwa, Ken & Ishihara, Shinichiro
2002 Missing links: Cleft, sluicing and ‘no da’ construction in Japanese. In Proceedings of HUMIT 2001. MITWPL #43, 35–54. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
2012 Syntactic metamorphosis: Clefts, sluicing, and in-situ focus in Japanese. Syntax 15(2): 142–180. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, Eric
1991 Licensing conditions on phrase structure. PhD dissertation, University of Groningen.
Hoekstra, Jarich & Marácz, Laszlo
1989 On the position of inflection in West-Germanic. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 44: 75–88.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun & Mulder, René
1990 Unergatives as copular verbs: Locational and existential predication. The Linguistic Review 7: 1–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoji, Hajime
1990 Theories of anaphora and aspects of Japanese syntax. ms. University of Southern California.
2003 Falsifiability and repeatability in generative grammar: A case study of anaphora and scope dependency in Japanese. Lingua 113: 377–446. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders
2000 Deriving OV order in Finnish. In The Derivation of VO and OV, Peter Svenonius (ed), 123–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders & Hróarsdóttir, Throbjörg
2003 Agreement and movement in Icelandic raising constructions. Lingua 113: 997–1019. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 Agreement and movement in Icelandic raising constructions. Lingua 114: 651–673. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert
2009 A Theory of Syntax: Minimal Operations and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert & Pietroski, Paul M.
2009 Basic operations: Minimal syntax-semantics. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 8: 113–139.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert & Uriagereka, Juan
1999 Labels and projections: a note on the syntax of quantifiers. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 249–270.Google Scholar
2002 Reprojections. In Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, Samuel David Epstein & T. Daniel Seely (eds), 106–132. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James
1982 Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT. Edited and published by Garland Publishing, New York (1998).
Iatridou, Sabine
1993 On nominative case assignment and a few related things. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19: 175–196.Google Scholar
Irurtzun, Aritz
2006 Focus and clause structuration in the minimalist program. In Minimalist Essays, Cedric Boeckx (ed), 68–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 The grammar of focus at the interfaces. PhD dissertation, University of the Basque Country.
Ishii, Toru
1997 An asymmetry in the composition of phrase structure and its consequences. PhD dissertation, University of California, Irvine.
Jackendoff, Ray
1977 X'-syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jayaseelan, Karattuparambil
2008 Bare phrase structure and specifier-less syntax. Biolinguistics 2: 87–106.Google Scholar
Kato, Takaomi
2004 Not so overt movement. In Proceedings of WCCFL 23, 436–449.Google Scholar
2006 Symmetries in coordination. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.
2007 On the nature of the left branch condition: Syntactic or phonological? In Proceedings of the 9th Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar.
Kato, Takaomi, Kuno, Masakazu, Narita, Hiroki, Zushi, Mihoko, & Fukui, Naoki
2014 Generalized search and cyclic derivation by phase: A preliminary study. Sophia Linguistica 61: 203–222.Google Scholar
Kawasaki, Noriko
1989 Jibun-tachi and non-coreferential anaphora. In Papers in Quantification, NFS Grant BNS 8719999, Principal investigators: Emmon Bach, Angelika Kratzer and Barbara Partee, Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S.
1981a ECP extensions. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 93–133.Google Scholar
1981b Unambiguous paths. In Levels of Syntactic Representation, R. May & J. Koster (eds), 143–183. Reidel.Google Scholar
1983 Connectedness. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 223–249.Google Scholar
1984 Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994 The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2004a Antisymmetry and Japanese. In Variation and Universals in Biolinguistics, L. Jenkins (ed), 3–35. Elsevier B. V.Google Scholar
2004b Prepositions as probes. In Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Adriana Belletti (ed), 192–212. Reprinted in Richard S. Kayne, Movement and silence, 2005, pp. 85–105. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2009 Antisymmetry and the lexicon. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 8(1): 1–31. Reprinted in Di Sciullo and Boeckx (2011). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Why are there no directionality parameters? In Proceedings of WCCFL 28, Mary Byram Washburn, Katherine McKinney-Bock, Erika Varis, Ann Sawyer, & Barbara Tomaszewicz (eds), Somerville, MA., 1–23. Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Kishimoto, Hideki
2005 Wh-in-situ and movement in Sinhala questions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 1–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin
1987 Configurationality in Hungarian. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kitahara, Hisatsugu
1997 Elementary Operations and Optimal Derivations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda & Sportiche, Dominique
1983 Variables and the bijection principle. The Linguistic Review 2: 139–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
1996 Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds), 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 The event argument and the semantics of verbs. ms. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Kuno, Masakazu
2003 Scrambling in Japanese as pure Merge. Linguistic Research: Working Papers in English Linguistics (Tokyo University English Linguistics Association): 45–78.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu
1973 The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1978 Danwa-no Bunpo [The Grammar of Discourse]. Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten.Google Scholar
Kurafuji, Takeo
1999 Japanese pronouns in dynamic semantics: The null/overt contrast. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.
Kural, Murat
1993 V-to (I-to) -C in Turkish. In UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 11, Filippo Beghelli & Murat Kural (eds), 17–54.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y.
1965 Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. PhD dissertation, MIT.
1971 Remarks on the notion of subject. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 11: 98–156.Google Scholar
1972 Categorical and thetic judgments: Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language 9: 1–37.Google Scholar
1976 Subject. In Japanese Generative Grammar, Masayoshi Shibatani (ed), 1–16. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1988 Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. In Papers from the Second International Workshop on Japanese Syntax, W.J. Poser (ed), 103–143. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications.Reprinted in S.-Y. Kuroda (1992).Google Scholar
1992 Japanese Syntax and Semantics: Collected Papers. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999 Bunpo riron to tetsugakuteki shizenshugi [Grammatical theory and philosophical naturalism]. In Gengo to Shiko [Language and Thought], Noam Chomsky & Masayuki Oishi (eds), 95–134. Tokyo: Shohakusha.Google Scholar
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
Lamontagne, Greg & Travis, Lisa deMena
1986 The Case Filter and the ECP. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 51–75.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard
1990 Essays on Restrictiveness and Learnability. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999 Chains of arguments. In Working Minimalism, Samuel David Epstein & Norbert Hornstein (eds), 189–215. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2003 Minimalist Investigations in Linguistic Theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard, Depiante, Marcela, & Stepanov, Arthur
2000 Syntactic Structures Revisited: Contemporary Lectures on Classic Transformational Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard & Park, Myung-Kwan
2003 The EPP and the Subject Condition under Sluicing. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 649–660. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard & Saito, Mamoru
1991 On the subject of infinitives. In Papers from the 27th Regional Meeting of Chicago Linguistic Society 1991. Part 1: The General Session, Lise M. Dobrin, Lynn Nichols, & Rosa M. Rodriguez (eds), 324–343. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistics Society. Reprinted in H. Lasnik (1999), Minimalist Analysis, Blackwell.Google Scholar
1992 Move α: Conditions on its Applications and Outputs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard, Uriagereka, Juan, & Boeckx, Cedric
2005 A Course in Minimalist Syntax: Foundations and Prospects. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lohndal, Terje
2012 Without specifiers: Phrase structure and events. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
Longobardi, Giuseppe
2003 Methods in parametric linguistics and cognitive history. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 3: 101–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John
1968 Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec
1984 On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1996 ‘Cat’ as a phrasal idiom: Consequences of late insertion in Distributed Morphology. ms., MIT.
1997 No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, 201–225. University of Pennsylvania Working Papersin Linguistics, Vol. 4.2.Google Scholar
2007 Phases and words. In Phases in the Theory of Grammar, S.-H. Choe (ed), 191–222. Seoul: Dong In.Google Scholar
Martin, Roger
2001 Null Case and the distribution of PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 141–166. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marušič, Franc
2009 If non-simultaneous spell-out exists, this is what it can explain. In Merging Features: Computation, Interpretation and Acquisition, Josep M. Brucart, Anna Gavarró, & Jaume Solà (eds), 175–193. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matushansky, Ora
2006 Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 69–109. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
May, Robert
1985 Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
McCawley, James
1968 Concerning the base component of a transformational grammar. Foundations of Language 4: 243–269.Google Scholar
McGilvray, James
1998 Meanings are syntactically individuated and found in the head. Mind and Language 13: 225–280. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002 MOPs: The science of concepts. In Belief and Meaning: Essays at the Interface, Wolfram Hinzen & Hans Rott (eds), 73–103. Frankfurt: Ontos.Google Scholar
2009 Introduction to the third edition. Noam Chomsky (2009) Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought, Third Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McGinn, Colin
1991 The Problem of Consciousness. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
1993 Problems in Philosophy. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru
1997 Against optional scrambling. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 1–25.Google Scholar
2003 A-movement scrambling and options without optionality. In Word Order and Scrambling, S. Karimi (ed). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2010 Why Agree? Why Move?: Unifying Agreement-based and Discourse Configurational Languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mori, Nobue
2005 A syntactic structure of lexical verbs. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
Moro, Andrea
1997a Dynamic antisymmetry: Movement as a symmetry-breaking phenomenon. Studia Linguistica 51: 50–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997b The Raising of Predicates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 Dynamic Antisymmetry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2007 Some notes on unstable structures. ms. Universita San Raffaele, Milano.
Motomura, Mitsue
2003 The thematic roles of sentential to/ko complements in Japanese/Korean. In Japanese Korean Linguistics 11, Patricia M. Clency (ed), 439–454. CSLI/Stanford University.Google Scholar
Narita, Hiroki
2007a Project Both in Japanese, with a case study of head-internal relative clauses. In Proceedings of the 8th Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, Yukio Otsu (ed), 213–237. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
2007b A “Project Both” perspective on covert movement in Japanese head-internal relative clauses. Master’s thesis, Sophia University.
2008 Two ways of pronouncing “unpronounceable” QR. In Proceedings of TCP2008, Yukio Otsu (ed), 151–175. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
2009a Full interpretation of optimal labeling. Biolinguistics 3(2–3): 213–254.Google Scholar
2009b How syntax naturalizes semantics: A review of Uriagereka (2008). Lingua 119(11): 1767–1775. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009c, 4 Multiple Transfer in service of recursive Merge. Paper presented at The 32nd GLOW Colloquium at Nantes University, April 15th–18th, 2009. Abstract published in GLOW Newsletter #62, 89–91.
2009d The naturalist program for neo-Cartesian biolinguistics. In Proceedings of Sophia University Linguistic Society 24, Takahito Shinya & Ako Imaoka (eds), 55–91.Google Scholar
2010 The tension between explanatory and biological adequacy: Review of Fukui (2006). Lingua 120(5): 1313–1323. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Phasing in Full Interpretation. PhD dissertation, Harvard University. http://​ling​.auf​.net​/lingBuzz​/001304.
2012a Head-detection, phases, and the complementarity of XP- v.s. X0-movement. In Online Proceedings of GLOW in Asia Workshop for Young Scholars 2011, Koichi Otaki, Hajime Takeyasu, & Shin-ichi Tanigawa (eds), 232–246. http://​faculty​.human​.mieu​.ac​.jp​/ glow mie​/Workshop Proceedings​/18Narita​.pdf.
2012b Phase cycles in service of projection-free syntax. In Phases: Developing the Framework, Ángel J. Gallego (ed), 125–172. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2012c Remarks on the nature of headedness and compositionality in bare phrase structure. In Proceedings of Sophia University Linguistic Society 26, Haruka Toyoda (ed), 81–126.Google Scholar
2012d *{XP, YP}, the independence of the LCA and antisymmetry, and the LCA-free phase-based account of the CED effect. ms. Waseda Institute for Advanced Study. To appear in Balazs Suranyi, ed., Minimalist Approaches to Syntactic Locality, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
forthcoming. *{t, t}. To appear in WCCFL 32 Proceedings.
Narita, Hiroki & Fujita, Koji
2010 A naturalist reconstruction of minimalist and evolutionary biolinguistics. Biolinguistics 4(4): 356–376.Google Scholar
Narita, Hiroki & Fukui, Naoki
2012 Merge and (a)symmetry. ms. Waseda Institute for Advanced Study and Sophia University. Paper presented by the second author at the Kyoto Conference on Biolinguistics, Kyoto University, March 12, 2012.
Narita, Hiroki, Kato, Takaomi, & Zushi, Mihoko
2013 Review of Di Sciullo and Boeckx (2011). English Linguistics 30: 780–791.Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad & Weerman, Fred
1999 Flexible Syntax: A Theory of Case and Arguments. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J.
2005 Possible and Probable Languages: A Generative Perspective on Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 Newmeyer’s rejoinder to Roberts and Holmberg on parameters. ms. University of Washington. lingBuzz/000248.
2010 Three approaches to exceptionality in syntactic typology. In Expecting the Unexpected: Exceptions in Grammar, Horst Simon & Heike Wiese (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nishigauchi, Taisuke
1990a Quantification in syntax. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
1990b Quantification in the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1991 Construing wh. In Logical Structure and Linguistic Structure: Cross-linguistic Perspectives, C.-T. James Huang & Robert May (eds), 197–231. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Nissenbaum, Jon
2000 Investigations of covert phrase movement. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Nunes, Jairo
2004 Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo & Uriagereka, Juan
2000 Cyclicity and extraction domains. Syntax 3: 20–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Obata, Miki
2010 Root, successive-cyclic and feature-splitting Internal Merge: Implications for feature-inheritance and Transfer. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan.
Ott, Dennis
2009 The conceptual necessity of phases: Some remarks on the minimalist enterprise. In Explorations of phase theory: Interpretation at the interfaces, K.K. Grohmann (ed). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2010 Grammaticality, interfaces, and UG. In Exploring Crash-proof Grammars, Michael Putnam (ed), 89–104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011a Local instability. PhD dissertation, Harvard University. Published online at http://​irs​.ub​.rug​.nl​/dbi​/4e8027471fa04, GAGL (Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik).
2011b A note on free relative clauses in the theory of phases. Linguistic Inquiry 42: 183–192. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 Local Instability: Split Topicalization and Quantifier Float in German. Berlin/New York: Walter De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
in press. Symmetric merge and local instability: Evidence from split topics. Syntax.
Pesetsky, David
1982 Paths and categories. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther
2001 T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed), 355–426. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2004 Tense, case, and the nature of syntactic categories. In The Syntax of Time, Jacqueline Guéron & Alexander Lecarme (eds), 495–537. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2006 Probes, goals, and the nature of syntactic categories. In Proceedings of the 7th Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, Yukio Otsu (ed), 25–60. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
2007 The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation. In Honor of Joseph E. Emonds, Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian, & Wendy Wilkins (eds), 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peters, Stanley P. & Ritchie, Robert W.
1973 On the generative power of transformational grammars. Science 6: 49–83.Google Scholar
Petitto, Laura-Ann
2005 How the brain begets language. In The Cambridge Companion to Chomsky, James McGilvray (ed), 84–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Piattelli-Palmarini, Massimo, Uriagereka, Juan, & Salaburu, Pello
(eds) 2009 Of Minds and Language: A Dialogue with Noam Chomsky in the Basque Country. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pietroski, Paul M.
2000 On explaining that. Journal of Philosophy 97: 655–662. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 Events and Semantic Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2008 Minimalist meaning, internalist interpretation. Biolinguistics 2(4): 317–341.Google Scholar
Poeppel, David, Idsardi, William J., & van Wassenhove, Virginie
2008 Speech perception at the interface of neurobiology and linguistics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 363: P1071–1086. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves
1989 Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M.
1974 On Raising: One Rule of English Grammar and its Theoretical Implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillan & Svenonius, Peter
2009 Mapping a parochial lexicon onto a universal semantics. In The Limits of Syntactic Variation, Theresa Biberauer (ed), 219–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Raposo, Eduardo & Uriagereka, Juan
1995 Two types of small clauses: Toward a syntax of theme/rheme relations. In Small Clauses, Anna Cardinaletti & Maria Teresa Guasti (eds), 179–206. New York: Academic Press.Reprinted in Uriagereka (2002).Google Scholar
1996 Indefinite SE. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 749–810. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya
1976 Syntacic domain of anaphora. PhD dissertation, MIT.
1981 Definite NP anaphora and c-command domains. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 605–635.Google Scholar
1983 Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Richards, Marc D.
2004 Object shift, scrambling, and symmetrical syntax. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.
2007a Dynamic linearization and the shape of phases. Linguistic Analysis 33: 209–237.Google Scholar
2007b On feature inheritance: An argument from the phase impenetrability condition. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 563–572. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Richards, Norvin
1997 What moves where when in which language? PhD dissertation, MIT.
1999 Featural cyclicity and the ordering of multiple specifiers. In Working Minimalism, Samuel David Epstein & Nobert Hornstein (eds), 127–158. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2001 Movement in Language: Interactions and Architectures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk
1978 A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness: The Binding Nature of Prepositional Phrases. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk & Williams, Edwin
1986 Introduction to the Theory of Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
1978 Violations of the wh-island constraint in Italian and the subjacency condition. In Montreal Working Papers in Linguistics 11, 155–190. Reprinted in Rizzi (1982), 49–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1982 Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1990 Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1997 The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2006 On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Wh-movement: Moving on, Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds), 97–133. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian
2010 Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter S.
1970 A principle governing deletion in English sentential complementation. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds), 220–9. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Ross, J.R.
1967 Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Ross, John Robert
1974 Three batons for cognitive psychology. In Cognition and the Symbolic Processes, Walter B. Weimer & David Palermo (eds). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
1986 Infinite Syntax! (Language and Being). New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Incorporation.Google Scholar
Saito, Mamoru
1985 Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications. PhD dissertation, MIT.
1989 Scrambling as semantically vacuous A'-movement. In Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, Mark R. Baltin & Anthony S. Kroch (eds), 182–200. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1992 Long distance scrambling in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1: 69–118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 A derivational approach to the interpretation of scrambling chains. Lingua 113: 481–558. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 On Miyagawa’s analysis of A-scrambling. Paper presented at Keio University Linguistics Colloquium, November 25th, 2005.
Saito, Mamoru & Fukui, Naoki
1998 Order in phrase structure and movement. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 439–474. Reprinted in Fukui (2006). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sakai, Hiromu
2000 Predicate ellipsis and nominalization. In Proceedings of the 2000 Seoul International Conference on Language and Computation, 85–113. Seoul, Korea: The Linguistic Society of Korea.
Samuels, Bridget & Narita, Hiroki
2013 Phasing out projection: Considerations from the syntax-phonology interface. Linguistic Analysis 38(3–4): 357–391.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli
1998 The meaning of chains. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Sciullo, Anna Maria Di & Boeckx, Cedric
(eds) 2011 The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Seely, T. Daniel
2006 Merge, derivational c-command, and subcategorization in a label-free syntax. In Minimalist Essays, Cedric Boeckx (ed), 182–217. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O.
1995 Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, John A. Goldsmith (ed), 550–569. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle
2009 The final-over-final constraint as an effect of complement stranding. Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics 15: 104–125.Google Scholar
2010 Labelling, multiple spell-out and the final-over-final constraint. In Incontro di Grammatica Generativa XXXV 2010, Vincenzo Moscati & Emilio Servidio (eds), Siena.Google Scholar
2013a Some implications of a copy theory of labeling. Syntax 16(4): 362–396. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013b The resuscitation of CED. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 40), Seda Kan, Claire Moore-Cantwell & Robert Staubs (eds), 135–150. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Simon, Mutsuko Endo
1989 An analysis of the postposing construction in Japanese. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan.
Sorida, Masanobu
2011 Cyclic Transfer, chains, and the A/A' problem of Japanese scrambling. Paper presented at the Chains in Minimalism conference, Yokohama National University, February 12–13, 2011.
2012 Unweaving chains. PhD dissertation, Sophia University, Tokyo.
Sportiche, Dominique
1988 A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 425–449.Google Scholar
Starke, Michal
2004 On the inexistence of specifiers and the nature of heads. In Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Adriana Belletti (ed), 252–268. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stepanov, Arthur
2007 The end of CED? minimalism and extraction domains. Syntax 10(1): 80–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stowell, Tim
1981 Origins of phrase structure. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Suñer, Margarita
1994 V-movement and the licensing of argumental Wh-phrases in Spanish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12(2): 335–372. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter
1994 C-selection as feature-checking. Studia Linguistica 58: 133–155. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 Limits on P: Filling in holes vs. falling in holes. Nordlyd. Proceedings of the 19th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics 31: 431–445.Google Scholar
2004 On the edge. In Peripheries: Syntactic Edges and their Effects, David Adger, Cécile de Cat, & George Tsulas (eds), 261–287. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
2010 Spatial P in English. In Mapping Spatial PPs: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 6, Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds), 127–161. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Takahashi, Daiko
1994 Minimality of movement. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Takahashi, Shoichi
2010 The hidden side of clausal complements. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28: 343–380. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Takano, Yuji
1995 Predicate fronting and internal subjects. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 327–340.Google Scholar
1996 Movement and parametric variation in syntax. PhD dissertation, University of California, Irvine.
2000 Illicit remnant movement. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 141–156. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, Hidekazu
2001 Right-dislocation as scrambling. Journal of Linguistics 37: 551–579. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tenny, Carol Lee
1987 Grammaticalizing aspect and affectedness. PhD dissertation, MIT.
1994 Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Boston: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur
1996 On the (non-)universality of functional categories. In Minimal Ideas: Syntactic Studies in the Minimalist Framework, Werner Abraham, Samuel David Epstein, Höskuldur Thráinsson, & JanWouter Zwart (eds), 253–281. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Toyoshima, Takashi
1997 Derivational CED: A consequence of the bottom-up parallel-process of Merge and Attract. In WCCFL 17 Proceedings, 505–519.Google Scholar
Truswell, Robert
2007a Extraction from adjuncts and the structure of events. Lingua 117: 1355–1377. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007b Locality of wh-movement and the individuation of events. PhD dissertation, University College London.
2008 Preposition stranding, passvisation, and extraction from adjuncts in Germanic. ms. Tufts University.
2011 Events, Phrases, and Questions. Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ueyama, Ayumi
1998 Two types of dependency. PhD dissertation, University of South California.
Uriagereka, Juan
1988 On government. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
1997 Formal and substantive elegance in the minimalist program (on the emergence of some linguistic forms). In The Role of Economy Principles in Linguistic Theory, C. Wilder, H.-M. Gartner, & M. Bierwisch (eds), 170–204. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
1999 Multiple Spell-Out. In Working Minimalism, Samuel David Epstein & Norbert Hornstein (eds), 251–282. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2002 Derivations: Exploring the Dynamics of Syntax. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2008 Syntactic Anchors: On Semantic Structuring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 Spell-Out and the Minimalist Program. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Akira
1992a Subjacency and S-structure movement of wh-in-situ. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1: 255–291. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992b Wh-in-situ, Subjacency, and Chain Formation, Volume 2 of MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics. MITWPL.Google Scholar
1996 Case Absorption and Wh-Agreement. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 Feature copying and binding. Syntax 3: 159–181. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 Functional projections of nominals in Japanese: Syntax of classifiers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24: 241–306. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 The structure of DP. In The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, Shigeru Miyagawa & Mamoru Saito (eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Webelhuth, Gert
1992 Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wexler, Kenneth & Culicover, Peter W.
1980 Formal Principles of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin
1981 Argument structure and morphology. The Linguistic Review 1: 81–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wujastyk, Dominik
1982 Bloomfield and the Sanskrit origin of the terms ‘exocentric’ and ‘endocentric’. Historiographia Linguistica 9(1/2): 179–184. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Charles D.
2002 Knowledge and Learning in Natural Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2004 Universal grammar, statistics or both? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(10): 451–456. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter
1993 Dutch syntax: a minimalist approach. PhD dissertation, University of Groningen.
2011 Structure and order: asymmetric merge. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism, Cedric Boeckx (ed), 96–118. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 7 other publications

No author info given
2015.  In Rethinking Syntactocentrism [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 225], Crossref logo
Benítez-Burraco, Antonio & Elliot Murphy
2016. The Oscillopathic Nature of Language Deficits in Autism: From Genes to Language Evolution. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 10 Crossref logo
Chen, Luyao, Tomás Goucha, Claudia Männel, Angela D. Friederici & Emiliano Zaccarella
2021. Hierarchical syntactic processing is beyond mere associating: Functional magnetic resonance imaging evidence from a novel artificial grammar. Human Brain Mapping Crossref logo
Murphy, Elliot
2015. Labels, cognomes, and cyclic computation: an ethological perspective. Frontiers in Psychology 6 Crossref logo
Murphy, Elliot
2015. The brain dynamics of linguistic computation. Frontiers in Psychology 6 Crossref logo
Murphy, Elliot & Antonio Benítez-Burraco
2016. Bridging the Gap between Genes and Language Deficits in Schizophrenia: An Oscillopathic Approach. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 10 Crossref logo
Trotzke, Andreas
2019. A note on the emotive origins of syntax. Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 1:1 ► pp. 90 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 03 may 2021. 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.

Subjects

Linguistics

Theoretical linguistics
Generative linguistics
Syntax
BIC Subject: CFK – Grammar, syntax
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2014023417 | Marc record