Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T16:02:44.393Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part I - The Computational Component

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2018

Ángel J. Gallego
Affiliation:
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Roger Martin
Affiliation:
Yokohama National University, Japan
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark 1997. “Thematic Roles and Syntactic Structure.” In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, Kluwer International Handbook of Linguistics. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 73137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barss, Andrew and Lasnik, Howard. 1986. “A Note on Anaphora and Double Objects.” Linguistic Inquiry 17: 347354.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana and Rizzi, Luigi. 1988. “Psych Verbs and Theta Theory.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 291352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, E. 1966. Problèmes de Linguistique Générale. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Bleam, Tonia. 1999. “Leísta Spanish and the Syntax of Clitic Doubling.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Bleam, Tonia. 2003. “Properties of the Double Object Construction in Spanish.” In Núñez-Cedeño, Rafael, López, Luis, and Cameron, Richard (eds.), A Romance Perspective on Language Knowledge and Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 233252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleam, Tonia and Lidz, Jeffrey. In prep. “Towards a Unified Analysis of Ditransitive Alternations across Languages.” MS., University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D. and Brown, S.. 1997. “Interarboreal Operations: Head Movement and the Extension Requirement.” Linguistic Inquiry 28(2): 345356.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric, Hornstein, Norbert, and Nunes, Jairo. 2010. Control as Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2000. “QR Obeys Superiority: Frozen Scope and ACD.” Linguistic Inquiry 32: 233273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures in Government and Binding. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cuervo, María Cristina. 2003. “Datives at Large.” Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Demonte, Violeta. 1995. “Dative Alternation in Spanish.” Probus 7: 530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Particles. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David. 1978. “Governed Transformations as Lexical Rules in a Montague Grammar.” Linguistic Inquiry 9: 393426.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1972. “Evidence that Indirect Object Movement is a Structure-Preserving Rule.” Foundations of Language 8: 546561.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1965. Indirect Object Constructions in English and the Ordering of Transformations. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Freeze, R. 1992. “Existentials and Other Locatives.” Language 68: 553595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freynik, Suzanne. 2012. “Quantifier-Variable Binding in L2 Spanish Ditransitives.” Ms., University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia. 1974. Semantics and Syntactic Regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel J.. 1993. “On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations.” In Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel J. (eds.), The View from Building 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 53109.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris and Marantz, Alec. 1993. “Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection.” In Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel J. (eds.), The View from Building 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 111176.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 1995. “If You Have, You Can Give.” In Agbayani, Brian and Tang, Sze-Wing (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 15. Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp. 193207.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2002. “Possession and the Double Object Construction.” Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2(1): 3170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2009. A Theory of Syntax: Minimal Operations and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990a. “On Larson's Treatment of the Doubled Object Construction.” Linguistic Inquiry 21: 427456.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990b. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jayaseelan, K. A. 2002. “IP-internal Topic and Focus Phrases.” Studia Linguistica 55: 3975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1975. French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1981. “Unambiguous Paths.” In May, Robert and Koster, Jan (eds.), Levels of Syntactic Representation. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 143183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1984. Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1993. “Towards a Modular Theory of Auxiliary Selection.” Studia Linguistica 47: 331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. “Severing the External Argument from its Verb.” In Rooryck, Johan and Zaring, Laurie (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 109137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1988. “On the Double Object Construction.” Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335391.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1990. “Double Objects Revisited: Reply to Jackendoff.” Linguistic Inquiry 2: 333378.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard. 2010. “On Pylkkänen's Semantics for Low Applicatives.” Linguistic Inquiry 41: 701704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard. 2014. On Shell Structure. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1999. “Chains of Arguments.” In Epstein, S. and Hornstein, N. (eds.), Working Minimalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 189215.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David. 1998. “Where Does the Binding Theory Apply?” Ms., NEC Research Institute.Google Scholar
Lidz, J. 2002. “Two Structures for Kannada Ditransitives.” Paper presented at South Asian Languages Analysis Roundtable 22.Google Scholar
Lidz, J. and Williams, A.. 2005. “C-locality and the Interaction of Reflexives and Ditransitives.” In Moulton, K. and Wolf, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society Annual Meeting (NELS) 34, Vol. II. New York: Stony Brook University, pp. 389404.Google Scholar
Lidz, J. and Williams, A.. 2006. “On the Lack of Reflexive Benefactives in Kannada.” In Battacharya, T. (ed.), Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 237254.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1982. “Affixation and the Syntax of Applied Verb Constructions.” In Flicklinger, D. P. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 17. Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp. 330340.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1988. “Clitics, Morphological Merger, and the Mapping to Phonological Structure.” In Hammon, Michael and Noonan, Michael (eds.), Theoretical Morphology. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 253270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masullo, Pascual. 1992. “Incorporation and Case Theory in Spanish: A Crosslinguistic Perspective.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
McGinnis, Martha. 2003. “Variation in the Phase Structure of Applicatives.” In Rooryck, Johan and Pica, Pierre (eds.), Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 105146.Google Scholar
Nakanishi, Kimiko. 2001. “Indefinites and Frozen Scope in Japanese: Restriction on QR and Choice Functions.” In Megerdoomian, Karine and Anne Bar-el, Leora (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 20. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 101114.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 1995. “The Copy Theory of Movement and the Linearization of Chains.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oehrle, Richard. 1976. “The Grammatical Status of the English Dative Alternation.” Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Ormazabal, Javier and Romero, Juan. 1999. “On the Syntactic Nature of the Me-lui and the Person-Case Constraint.” Ms., University of the Basque Country and MIT.Google Scholar
Ormazabal, Javier and Romero, Juan. 2010. “The Derivation of Dative Alternations.” In Duguine, M., Huidobro, S., and Madariaga, N. (eds.), Argument Structure and Syntactic Relations from a Crosslinguistic Perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 203232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pietroski, Paul. 2005. Events and Semantic Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. “Introducing Arguments.” Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Rappaport-Hovav, Malka and Levin, Beth. 2008. “The English Dative Alternation: The Case for Verb Sensitivity.” Journal of Linguistics 44: 129167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, Kieran M. 2003. “The Relationship between *Form and *Function in Ditransitive Constructions.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1988. “On Government.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1998. Rhyme and Reason: An Introduction to Minimalist Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

References

Alexiadou, A. and Anagnostopoulou, E.. 2001. The subject-in-situ generalization and the role of case in driving computations. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 193231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., Iordachioia, G., and Marchis, M.. 2010. No objections to backward control. In Hornstein, N. and Polinsky, M. (eds.), Movement Theory of Control. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 89118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belletti, A. 1990. Generalized Verb Movement Aspects of Verb Syntax. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. 2007. Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: evidence from near native Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25.4: 657689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, J. and Jonas, D.. 1996. Subject positions and the roles of TP. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 195236.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. 2004. Towards a cartography of subject positions. In Rizzi, L. (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP. New York: Oxford University Press, 115165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. and Shlonsky, U.. 2004. Clitic positions and restructuring in Italian. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 519557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. 2006. Restructuring and Functional Heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, J. 1997. On the behavior of adverbs in sentence-final context. The Linguistic Review 14: 4368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallego, Á. 2013. Object shift in Romance. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31: 409451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guasti, M. T. 1993. Causative and Perception Verbs: A Comparative Study. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google Scholar
Hinterhölzl, R. 2005. Scrambling, Remnant Movement, and Restructuring in West Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Homer, V., Ishizuka, T., and Sportiche, D.. 2009. The locality of clitic placement and the analysis of French causatives. Paper presented at the 7th GLOW in Asia Conference (GLOW Asia 7). The English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad, India.Google Scholar
Hornstein, H. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 6996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. 1975. French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Koopman, H. and Szabolsci, A.. 2000. Verbal Complexes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Motapanyane, V. 1995. Theoretical Implications of Complementation in Romanian. Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar
Nicolis, M. 2001. L-Tous, restructuring, and quantifier climbing. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 26: 6384.Google Scholar
Ordóñez, F. 1998. Post-verbal asymmetries in Spanish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 313346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ordóñez, F. 2007. Cartography of postverbal subjects in Spanish and Catalan. In Baauw, S., Drijkoningen, F., and Pinto, M. (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 259281.Google Scholar
Ortega-Santos, , I. 2016. Focus-Related Operations at the Right Edge in Spanish: Subjects and Ellipsis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piera, Carlos. 1987. Sobre la estructura de las cláusulas de infinitivo. In Demonte, V. and Fernández, L. (eds.), Sintaxis de las lenguas románicas. Madrid: Arco Libros, 148166.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. and Potsdam, E.. 2002. Backward control. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 245282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, M. and Potsdam, E. 2006. Expanding the scope of control and raising. Syntax 9: 171192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1976. Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1996. Residual verb second and the wh-criterion. In Belletti, A. and Rizzi, L. (eds.), Parameters and Functional Heads: Essays in Comparative Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 6390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosselló, J. 2002. El SV i arguments verbals. In Solà, J. (ed.), Gramàtica del Català contemporani. Barcelona: Empúries, 18531949.Google Scholar
Sánchez López, C. 1993. Una anomalía del sistema pronominal español. Dicenda. Cuadernos de Filología Hispánica 11: 259284.Google Scholar
Solà, Jaume. 1992. Agreement and subjects. Doctoral dissertation. Bellaterra, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. http://filcat.uab.cat/clt/publicacions/tesis/pdf/Sola.pdf.Google Scholar
Torrego, E. 1996. On Quantifier Float in control clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 111126.Google Scholar
Vallduví, E. 2002. L'oració com a Unitat Informativa. In Solà, J. (ed.), Gramàtica del Català Contemporari. Barcelona: Empúries, 12211279.Google Scholar

References

Agüero-Bautista, Calixto. 2007. Diagnosing cyclicity in sluicing. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 413443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aoun, Joseph and Li, Audrey. 1993. The syntax of scope. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W. 1970. On complementizers: Towards a syntactic theory of complement types. Foundations of Language 6: 297321.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1993. Questions with quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics 1: 181234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1955. The logical structure of linguistic theory. Ms. Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. and MIT, Cambridge, Mass. [Revised 1956 version published in part by Plenum, New York, 1975. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985.]Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1964. Current issues in linguistic theory. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1972. Some empirical issues in the theory of transformational grammar. In Goals of linguistic theory, ed. Peters, Paul Stanley, 63130. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. Anderson, Stephen and Kiparsky, Paul, 232286. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Formal syntax, ed. Culicover, Peter, Wasow, Thomas, and Akmajian, Adrian, 71132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Felser, Claudia. 2004. Wh-copying, phases, and successive cyclicity. Lingua 114: 543574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukui, Naoki and Speas, Margaret. 1986. Specifiers and projection. In MIT working papers in linguistics 8, 128172.Google Scholar
Grano, Thomas and Lasnik, Howard. In press. How to neutralize a finite clause boundary: Phase theory and the grammar of bound pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry. 49, 3.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1983. Connectedness. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 223249. [Reprinted in Kayne, Richard. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.]Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1998. Overt vs. covert movement. Syntax 1: 128191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 187237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard and May, Robert. 1990. Antecedent containment or vacuous movement: Reply to Baltin. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 103122.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard and Saito, Mamoru. 1984. On the nature of proper government. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 235–289. [Reprinted in Lasnik, Howard, Essays on restrictiveness and learnability, 198255. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1990.]Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard and Saito, Mamoru 1992. Move α. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard and Uriagereka, Juan (with Cedric Boeckx). 2005. A course in minimalist syntax: Foundations and prospects. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
May, Robert. 1977. The grammar of quantification. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
May, Robert. 1985. Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
May, Robert. 1988. Ambiguities of quantification and wh: A reply to Williams. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 118135.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1974. On raising: One rule of English grammar and its theoretical implications. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1978. A restructuring rule in Italian syntax. In Recent transformational studies in European languages, ed. Jay Keyser, Samuel, 113–158. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1980. Violations of the wh-island constraint and the Subjacency condition. Journal of Italian Linguistics 5: 157195.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. [Published as Infinite syntax! Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1986.]Google Scholar
Sloan, Kelly. 1991. Quantifier-wh interaction. In MIT Working Paper in Linguistics 15, 219237.Google Scholar
Sloan, Kelly and Uriagereka, Juan. 1988. What does “everyone” have scope over? Paper presented at the Generative Linguists in the Old World (GLOW) Conference. Budapest.Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 1981. Bounding nodes in French. The Linguistic Review 1: 219246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1988. On government. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1986. A reassignment of the functions of LF. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 265299.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1988. Is LF distinct from S-structure? A reply to May. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 135146.Google Scholar

References

Acquaviva, P. 1997. The Logical Form of Negation. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics. Revised edn. New York: Garland Science.Google Scholar
Baunaz, L. 2011. The Grammar of French Quantification. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 83. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Beghelli, F. & Stowell, T.. 1997. “Distributivity and negation: The syntax of each and every,” in Szabolcsi, A. (ed.), Ways of Scope Taking. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 71107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 1990. Types of A-bar Dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Corver, N. 1997. “The internal syntax of the Dutch extended adjectival projection,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15, 289368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etxepare, R. 1997. “On the grammatical representation of speech events,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Etxepare, R. & Uribe-Etxebarria, M.. 2005. “Wh-phrases in-situ in Spanish: Scope and locality,” Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 33, 934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etxepare, R. & Uribe-Etxebarria, M.. 2008. “On negation and focus in Spanish and Basque,” in Artiagoitia, X. & Lakarra, J. (eds.), Gramatika jaietan: Patxi Goenaga irakaslearen omenaldiz. Special issue of International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology. UPV/EHU, Bilbao, 287309.Google Scholar
Etxepare, R. & Uribe-Etxebarria, M.. 2012. “Las preguntas de Qu-in situ en español: un análisis derivacional,” in Brucart, J. M. & Gallego, Á. (eds.), El movimiento de constituyentes. Madrid: Visor, 247268.Google Scholar
González, R. 2008. “La polaridad positiva en español,” Ph.D. dissertation, Universidad Complutense and Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset, Madrid.Google Scholar
Herburger, E. 2000. What Counts: Focus and Quantification. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, L. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Israel, M. 2011. The Grammar of Polarity: Pragmatics, Sensitivity, and the Logic of Scales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kim, J. B. & Sag, I.. 2002. “Negation without head movement,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20, 339412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiss, K. E. 2002. A Grammar of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klima, E. S. 1964. “Negation in English,” in Fodor, J. & Katz, J. (eds.), The Structure of Language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 246323.Google Scholar
REAL ACADEMIA ESPAÑOLA: Banco de datos (CREA) [en línea]. Corpus de referencia del español actual (“Reference Corpus of Contemporary Spanish”). Available at www.rae.es.Google Scholar
Rivero, M. L. 1970. “A surface structure constraint on negation in Spanish,” Language 46(3), 640666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1997. “The fine structure of the left periphery,” in Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of Grammar: A Handbook of Generative Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 281337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooth, M. 1992. “A theory of focus interpretation,” Natural Language Semantics 1, 75116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sánchez-López, C. 1999. “La negación,” in Bosque, I. & Demonte, V. (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua Española, Vol. II. Madrid: Espasa, 25612634.Google Scholar
Temmerman, T. 2012. “Multidominance, ellipsis, and quantifier scope,” Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J. 2008. Syntactic Anchors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uribe-Etxebarria, M. 2002. “In situ questions and masked movement,” Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2, 259303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeljstra, H. 2013. “Not in the first place,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31, 865900.Google Scholar

References

Alexiadou, Artemis. 1994. “Issues in the syntax of adverbs,” unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Borgonovo, Claudia. 2001. “Mood and focus,” in Quer, Josep, Schoten, Jan, Scorreti, Mauro, Sleeman, Petra, and Verheugd, Els (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2001: Selected Papers from Going Romance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1730.Google Scholar
Bosque, Ignacio. 1980. Sobre la negación. Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa and Downing, Laura. 2012. “Prosodic domains do not match spell out domains,” McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 22 (Winter): 114.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. “Minimalist inquiries: The framework,” in Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by Step. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 89155.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. “Derivation by phase,” in Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 152.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. “Beyond explanatory adequacy,” in Belletti, Adriana (ed.), Structures and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 104131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. “On phases,” in Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos, and Zubizarreta, María-Luisa (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 133166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Giglielmo. 1990. Types of A’-dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1967. “Causal relations,” Journal of Philosophy 64: 691703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobrovi-Sorin, Carmen. 2001. “Head-to-head Merge in Balkan subjunctives and locality,” in Rivero, María-Luisa and Ralli, Angela (eds.), Comparative Syntax of the Balkan Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 4473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 1976. A Transformational Approach to English Syntax: Root, Structure Preserving and Local Transformations. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gallego, Angel J. 2010. Phase Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosu, Alexander and Horvath, Julia. 1984. “The GB theory and raising in Rumanian,” Linguistic Inquiry 15: 348353.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2004. “The syntax of adverbial clauses and its consequences for topicalization,” in Coene, Martine, de Cuyper, Greet, and D'Hulst, Yves (eds.), Current Studies in Comparative Romance Linguistics. Antwerp: University of Antwerp, 6190.Google Scholar
Hirschberg, Julia and Avesani, Cinzi. 1997. “The role of prosody in disambiguating potentially ambiguous utterances in English and Italian,” in Botinis, Antonis, Kouroupetroglou, G., and Carayiannis, G. (eds.), Intonation: Theory, Models and Applications. Athens: ESCA/University of Athens, 189192.Google Scholar
Kempchinsky, Paula. 2000. “Prosodic disambiguation in English and Italian,” in Botinis, Anonis (ed.), Intonation. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 8796.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan and Thompson, Sandra. 1973. “On the applicability of root transformations,” Linguistic Inquiry 4: 465497.Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia. 2007. “Separating ‘focus movement’ from focus,” in Karimi, Simin, Samian, Vida, and Wilkins, Wendy (eds.), Phrasal and Clausal Architecture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 108145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2007. “Major phrase, focus intonation, multiple spell-out,” Linguistic Review 34: 137167.Google Scholar
Johnston, Michael. 1993. “Because-clauses and negative polarity licensing,” in Kathol, Andres (ed.), Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) 93. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 163174.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1981. “On certain differences between French and English,” Linguistic Inquiry 12: 349371.Google Scholar
Kempchinsky, Paula. 1986. “Romance subjunctive clauses,” unpublished Ph.D. thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar
Kempchinsky, Paula. 2009. “What can the subjunctive disjoint reference effect tell us about the subjunctive?Lingua 119: 17881810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika and Selkirk, Elizabeth. 2007. “Phase theory and prosodic spellout: the case of verbs,” The Linguistic Review 24(2–3): 93135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laka, Itziar. 1990. “Negation in syntax,” unpublished Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1988. “On the double object construction,” Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335391.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard 2004. “Sentence-final adverbs and ‘scope’,” in Wolf, M. and Moulton, K. (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 34. UMASS: GLSA, 2343.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1975. “On the semantics of negation,” in Hockney, D., Harper, W., and Freed, B. (eds.), Contemporary Research and Philosophical Logic and Linguistic Semantics, The University of Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science, Vol. 4. Dordrecht: Springer, 279311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nestor, Marina and Irene, Vogel. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Padilla, José A. 1990. On the Definition of Binding Domains in Spanish. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David and Torrego, Esther. 2004. “Tense, case and the nature of syntactic categories,” in Guéron, Jacqueline and Lacarme, Jacqueline (eds.), The Syntax of Time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 495539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard 2007. “The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features,” in Karimi, Simin, Samian, Vida, and Wilkins, Wendy (eds.), Phrasal and Clausal Architecture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 262294.Google Scholar
Picallo, Carme. 1984. “Opaque domains,” unpublished Ph.D. thesis, CUNY.Google Scholar
Prieto, Pilar. 2006. “Phonological phrasing in Spanish,” in Colina, Sonia and Martinez Gil, Fernández (eds.), Optimality Theoretical Advantages in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 3960.Google Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana. 1994. Negative and Positive Polarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quer, Josep. 1998. Mood at the Interface. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Quer, Josep 2005. “Subjunctives,” in Evaraert, Martin and van Riemsdijk, Hen (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell, 660684.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. 1956. “Quantifiers and propositional attitudes,” The Journal of Philosophy 53(5): 177187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivero, María Luisa and Geber, Dana. 2003. “Quirky subjects and person restrictions in Romance: Romanian and Spanish,” Cahiers Linguistiques D'Ottawa 31: 5366.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. “The fine structure of the left periphery,” in Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 281337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roussou, Anna. 2001. “Control and raising,” in Rivero, María-Luisa and Ralli, Angela (eds.), Comparative Syntax of the Balkan Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 74104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawada, Miyuki and Larson, Richard. 2003. “Presupposition and root transformations in adjunct clauses,” in Wolf, M. and Moulton, K. (eds.), NELS 34: Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistics Society. UMASS: GLSA, 517528.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1986. “On derived domains in sentence phonology,” Phonology Yearbook 3: 371405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth 1995. “Sentence prosody: intonation, stress and phrasing,” in Goldsmith, John (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Cambridge: Blackwell, 550569.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth 2005. “Comments on intonational phrasing in English,” in Frota, Sónia, Vigário, Marina, and Freitas, M. João (eds.), Prosodies: With Special Reference to Iberian Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, Laura. 2009. “Mood selection in Romance and Balkan,” Lingua 119: 18591882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stroik, Thomas. 1999. “Adverbs as V-sisters,” Linguistic Inquiry 21: 654661.Google Scholar
Torrego, Esther. 1984. “On inversion in Spanish and some of its effects,” Linguistic Inquiry 15: 103130.Google Scholar
Torrego, Esther and Uriagereka, Juan. 1992. “Indicative dependents,” ms., University of Massachusetts and University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1999. “On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases,” Linguistic Inquiry 30: 219255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan and Gallego, Angel. 2007. “Subjunctive dependents,” XVII Colloquium on Generative Grammar, Girona, June 13–15, 2007.Google Scholar
Uribe-Extebarria, María. 1994. “Interface licensing conditions on negative polarity items,” unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Wagner, Michael. 2005. “Prosody and recursion,” unpublished Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, María Luisa. 1998. Prosody, Focus and Word Order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

References

Ackema, P. & Neeleman, A.. 2004. Beyond Morphology: Interface Conditions on Word Formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A. & Anagnostopoulou, E.. 2001. ‘The Subject-in-Situ Generalization and the Role of Case in Driving Derivations.’ Linguistic Inquiry 32: 192231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Haegeman, L. & Stavrou, M.. 2007. The Noun Phrase in the Generative Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazalgette, T. 2015. ‘Algorithmic Acquisition of Focus Parameters.’ PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bejar, S. & Rezac, M.. 2009. ‘Cyclic Agree.’ Linguistic Inquiry 40: 3573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berwick, R. C. & Chomsky, N.. 2011. ‘The Biolinguistic Program: The Current State of its Evolution and Development.’ In The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty, ed. Sciullo, A. M. Di & Boeckx, C.. 1941. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. 2015. ‘The Limits of Syntactic Variation: An Emergentist Generative Perspective.’ Invited talk given at the Workshop on Language Variation and Change and Cultural Evolution (Centre for Linguistics History and Diversity, York University, 13 February 2015).Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. & Roberts, I.. 2010. ‘Subjects, Tense and Verb Movement.’ In Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, ed. Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. & Sheehan, M.. 263302. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. & Roberts, I.. 2015. ‘The Clausal Hierarchy, Features and Parameters.’ In Beyond Functional Sequence: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 10, ed. Shlonsky, Ur. 295313. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. & Roberts, I.. 2017. ‘Parameter Setting.’ In The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax, ed. Ledgeway, A. & Roberts, I.. 134–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A. & Roberts, I. G.. 2014. ‘A Syntactic Universal and Its Consequences.’ Linguistic Inquiry 45(2): 169225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. & Sheehan, M.. 2010. Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. and Sheehan, M.. 2014. ‘Complexity and Comparative Syntax: The View from Modern Syntactic Theory.’ In Measuring Grammatical Complexity, ed. Newmeyer, F. J. & Preston, L. B.. 103–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T., Roberts, I. & Sheehan, M.. 2014. ‘No-choice Parameters and the Limits of Syntactic Variation.’ In Proceedings of WCCFL 31, ed. Santana-LaBarge, Robert E.. 4655. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. & Gallego, A.. 2008. ‘Clitic-Climbing by Long-Distance Agree.’ Talk given at Meeting Clitics: Workshop on Explanatory Proposals of Clitics, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona.Google Scholar
Borer, H. 2005. In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2002. ‘On Multiple Wh-fronting.’ Linguistic Inquiry 33: 351–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brugè, L. 1994. ‘Alcune considerazioni sulla sintassi del dimostrativo in spagnolo.’ Ms., Universities of Padua and Venice.Google Scholar
Brugè, L. 1996. ‘Demonstrative Movement in Spanish: A Comparative Approach.’ University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 6: 153.Google Scholar
Brugè, L. 2000. Categorie funzionali del nome nelle lingue romanze. Milan: Cisalpino.Google Scholar
Brugè, L. 2002. ‘The Positions of Demonstratives in the Extended Nominal Projections.’ In Functional Structure in DP and IP, ed. Cinque, G.. 1553. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brugè, L. & Giusti, G.. 1996. ‘On Demonstratives.’ Paper presented at the 19th GLOW Colloquium, Athens. GLOW Newsletter 36: 24–5.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. 2008. ‘Clitic Clusters.’ Ms., University of Venice.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. & Starke, M.. 1999. ‘The Typology of Structural Deficiency: A Case Study of the Three Classes of Pronouns.’ In Clitics in the Languages of Europe, ed. van Riemsdijk, H.. 145235. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cheng, L. 1991. ‘On the Typology of Wh-Questions.’ PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. 1995. ‘Variability of Impersonal Subjects’. In Quantification in Natural Languages, ed. Bach, E., Jelinek, E., Kratzer, A. & Partee, B. H.. 107–44. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. 1998. ‘Reference to Kinds across Languages.’ Natural Language Semantics 6: 339405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1975. Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. ‘Derivation by Phase.’ In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. Kenstowicz, Michael. 2853. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2005. ‘Three Factors in Language Design.’ Linguistic Inquiry 36: 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2008. ‘On Phases.’ In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos & Zubizarreta, Maria-Luisa. 133–66. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 2005. ‘Deriving Greenberg's Universal 20 and Its Exceptions.’ Linguistic Inquiry 36(3): 315–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corver, N. & van Koppen, M.. 2010. ‘(Dis)harmonic Variation, the Definite Article and NPE in the Dutch Dialects’. Paper presented at the Workshop on Disharmony in Nominals, Linguistics Association of Great Britain Annual Meeting, Leeds University, September 2010.Google Scholar
den Dikken, M. 2009. ‘On the Nature and Distribution of Successive Cyclicity.’ Talk given at the 40th Conference of the North Eastern Linguistic Society (NELS), MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. 2008. ‘The Order of Demonstrative, Numeral, Adjective and Noun: An Alternative to Cinque.’ Talk given at Theoretical Approaches to Disharmonic Word Orders, Newcastle University, May.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. E. 1978. ‘The Verbal Complex V’-V in French.’ Linguistic Inquiry 9: 151–75.Google Scholar
Fiengo, R. & Higginbotham, J.. 1981. ‘Opacity in NP.’ Linguistic Analysis 7: 347–73.Google Scholar
Fox, D. 2002. ‘Antecedent-Contained Deletion and the Copy Theory of Movement.’ Linguistic Inquiry 33: 6396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gianollo, C., Guardiano, C. & Longobardi, G.. 2008. ‘Three Fundamental Issues in Parametric Linguistics.’ In The Limits of Syntactic Variation, ed. Biberauer, T.. 109–42. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Giusti, G. 1993. La sintassi dei determinanti. Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana. 1997. ‘The Categorial Status of Determiners.’ In The New Comparative Syntax, ed. Haegeman, L.. 95124. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana. 2001. ‘The Birth of a Functional Category: From Latin ille to the Romance Article and Personal Pronoun.’ In Current Studies in Italian Syntax: Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi, ed. Cinque, Guglielmo & Salvi, Giampaolo. 157–71. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana. 2002. ‘The Functional Structure of Noun Phrases: A Bare Phrase Structure Approach.’ In Functional Structure in DP and IP, ed. Cinque, G.. 5490. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grohmann, K. & Panagiotidis, P.. 2005. ‘An Anti-locality Approach to Greek Demonstratives.’ In Contributions to the 30th Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, ed. Brugè, L., Giusti, G., Munaro, N., Schweikert, W. & Turano, G.. 243–63. Venice: Cafoscarina.Google Scholar
Guardiano, C. 2010. ‘Demonstratives and the Structure of the DP: Crosslinguistic Remarks’. Paper presented at the Workshop on Disharmony in Nominals, Linguistics Association of Great Britain Annual Meeting, Leeds University, September 2010.Google Scholar
Höhn, G. 2017. ‘Non-Possessive Person in the Nominal Domain’. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. 2010. ‘Null Subject Parameters.’ In Parametric Variation: The Null Subject Parameter, ed. Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. & Sheehan, M.. 88124. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 2000. Parameters and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 2013. ‘Why There Are No Directionality Parameters.’ In Theoretical Approaches to Disharmonic Word Order, ed. Biberauer, T. and Sheehan, M.. 219–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koopman, H. & Sportiche, D.. 1982. ‘Variables and the Bijection Principle.’ The Linguistic Review 2: 139–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohndal, J.-T. & Uriagereka, J.. 2017. Third-Factor Explanations and Universal Grammar. In The Oxford Handbook of Universal Grammar, ed. Roberts, I.. 114–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. 1994. ‘Reference and Proper Names: A Theory of N-Movement in Syntax and Logical Form.’ Linguistic Inquiry 25: 609–65.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. 1996. The Syntax of N-Raising: A Minimalist Theory. Utrecht: OTS Working Papers.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. 2008. ‘Reference to Individuals, Person, and the Variety of Mapping Parameters.’ In Essays on Nominal Determination: From Morphology to Discourse Management, ed. Müller, H. Høeg & Klinge, A.. 189211. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G. 2010. Lecture series on DP-structure. University of Cambridge, November 2010.Google Scholar
Lyons, C. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M.-R. 2012. Review of I. Roberts, Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation and Defective Goals. Language 88: 212–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, J. 1996. ‘On the Scope of Verb-Movement in Irish.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 47104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. 1998. Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nunes, J. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panagiotidis, P. 2000. ‘Demonstrative Determiners and Operators: The Case of Greek.’ Lingua 110: 717–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. ‘Verb Movement, Universal Grammar and the Structure of IP.’ Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365424.Google Scholar
Richards, M. 2008. ‘Defective Agree, Case Alternations, and the Prominence of Person.’ In Scales, ed. Richards, M. & Malchukov, A. L.. 137–61. Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2005. Principles and Parameters in a VSO Language: A Case Study in Welsh. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 2007. Diachronic Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2010a. Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 2010b. ‘A Deletion Analysis of Null Subjects.’ In Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, ed. Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. & Sheehan, M.. 5887. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2012a. ‘Macroparameters and Minimalism: A Programme for Comparative Research.’ In Parameter Theory and Linguistic Change, ed. Galves, C., Cyrino, S., Lopes, R., Sândalo, F. & Avelar, J.. 320–35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2012b. ‘Phases, Head-Movement and Second-Position Effects.’ In Phases: Developing the Framework, ed. Gallego, Angel. 385440. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 2017. ‘The Final-Over-Final Condition in DP: Universal 20 and the Nature of Demonstratives.’ In The Final-over-Final Condition: A Syntactic Universal, ed. Sheehan, M., Biberauer, T., Roberts, I. & Holmberg, A.. 151–86. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. & Roussou, A.. 2003. Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, N. 2003. ‘Demonstrative Position in Michif.’ Canadian Journal of Linguistics 48: 3969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. R. 1967. ‘Constraints on Variables in Syntax.’ PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1905. ‘On Denoting.’ Mind 14: 479–93.Google Scholar
Russell, B. & Whitehead, A. N.. 1910–13. Principia Mathematica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Safir, K. 2014. ‘One True Anaphor.’ Linguistic Inquiry 45: 91124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shlonsky, U. 2004. ‘The Form of Semitic Noun Phrases.’ Lingua 114: 1465–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starke, M. 2001. ‘Move Dissolves into Merge.’ PhD dissertation, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J. 1988. ‘On Government.’ PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Vincent, N. 1997. ‘The Emergence of the D-system in Romance.’ In Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, ed. van Kemenade, A. & Vincent, N.. 149–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Watanabe, A. 1992. Wh-in-Situ, Subjacency, and Chain Formation. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 2. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MITWPL.Google Scholar
Williams, E. 1981. ‘Argument Structure and Morphology.’ The Linguistic Review 1: 81114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, E. 1994. Thematic Structure in Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×