Part II - Interfaces
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 October 2018
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences , pp. 137 - 266Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
References
Barbiers, Sjef, Koeneman, Olaf, and Lekakou, Marika 2010. “Syntactic doubling and the structure of wh-chains,” Journal of Linguistics 46: 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko 2001. On the nature of the syntax–phonology interface: Cliticization and related phenomena. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko 2002. “On multiple wh-fronting,” Linguistic Inquiry 33: 351–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1993. “A minimalist program for linguistic theory,” in Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel (eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, pp. 1–52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1995. “Categories and transformations,” in The minimalist program, pp. 219–394. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Corver, Norbert and Nunes, Jairo (eds.) 2007. The copy theory of movement. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Déchaine, Rose-Marie and Wiltschko, Martina 2002. “Decomposing pronouns,” Linguistic Inquiry 33: 409–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dotlačil, Jakub 2008. “Across-the-board extraction and clitic omission in Czech,” in Antonenko, A., Bailyn, J., and Bethin, C. (eds.), Proceedings of formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 16: The Stony Brook Meeting, pp. 134–150. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene 1982. “The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases,” doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert and Nunes, Jairo 2008. “Adjunction, labeling, and bare phrase structure,” Biolinguistics 2: 57–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard 1999. “Chains of arguments,” in David Epstein, Samuel and Hornstein, Norbert (eds.), Working minimalism, pp. 189–215. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David 1991. “Relative clauses, licensing, and the nature of the derivation,” in Rothstein, Susan (ed.), Syntax and semantics 25: Perspective on phrase structure: heads and licensing, pp. 209–239. San Diego, Calif.: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lidz, Jeffrey and Idsardi, William 1997. “Chains and phono-logical form,” UPenn Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 109–125.Google Scholar
Martin, Roger and Uriagereka, Juan 2014. “Chains in minimalism,” in Kosta, Peter, Franks, Steven L., Radeva-Bork, Teodora, and Schürcks, Lilia (eds.), Minimalism and beyond: Radicalizing the interfaces, pp. 169–194. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Munn, Alan 1993. “Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures,” doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Munn, Alan 1994. “A minimalist account of reconstruction asymmetries,” in Gonzàlez, Mercé (ed.), Proceedings of NELS 24, pp. 397–410. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, GLSA.Google Scholar
Niinuma, Fumikazu 2010. “Across-the-board and parasitic gap constructions in Romanian,” Linguistic Inquiry 41: 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, Jairo 1995. “The copy theory of movement and linearization of chains in the minimalist program,” doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo 1999. “Linearization of chains and phonetic realization of chain links,” in David Epstein, Samuel and Hornstein, Norbert (eds.), Working minimalism, pp. 217–249. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, Jairo 2011. “The copy theory,” in Boeckx, Cedric (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism, pp. 143–172. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo 2012. “Sideward movement: Triggers, timing, and outputs,” in Uribe-Etxebarria, Myriam and Valmala, Vidal (eds.), Ways of structure building, pp. 114–142. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, Jairo and Uriagereka, Juan 2000. “Cyclicity and extraction domains,” Syntax 3: 20–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudin, Catherine, Kramer, Christina, Billings, Loren, and Baerman, Matthew 1999. “Macedonian and Bulgarian li questions: Beyond syntax,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 541–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thoms, Gary 2010. “Syntactic reconstruction and scope economy,” paper delivered at GLOW 33, University of Wrocław, 14/4/2010.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan 1999. “Multiple Spell-Out,” in David Epstein, Samuel and Hornstein, Norbert (eds.), Working minimalism, pp. 251–282. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin 1989/1990. “The ATB theory of parasitic gaps,” The Linguistic Review 6: 265–279.Google Scholar
References
Arnauld, A. and Lancelot, C. 1660/1676/1966. Grammaire generale et raisonnee ou La Grammaire de Port Royal. Grammatica Universalis, I. Stuttgart Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
Binder, J. and Desai, R. 2011. “The neurobiology of semantic memory.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 15:11, 527–536.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boskovic, Z. 1995. “Case properties of clauses and the greed principle.” Studia Linguistica 49, 32–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht and Cinnaminson: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000a. “Minimalist inquiries.” In Martin, R., Michaels, D., and Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by Step. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 89–155.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000b. New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. “Derivation by phase.” In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–52.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2005. “Three factors in language design.” Linguistic Inquiry 36, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Hoop, H. 1996. Case Configuration and Noun Phrase Interpretation. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
DeVilliers, J. 2014. “What kind of concepts need language?” Language Sciences 46B, 100–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinzen, W. 2014. The rationality of case. Language Sciences 46(B), 133–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.03.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinzen, W. 2017. “Universal grammar and philosophy of mind.” In Roberts, I. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 37–60.Google Scholar
Hinzen, W. and Sheehan, M. 2015. The Philosophy of Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hinzen, W. and Uriagereka, J. 2006. “On the metaphysics of linguistics.” Erkenntnis 65:1, 71–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, C. and Kiparsky, P.. 1970. “Fact.” In Bierwisch, M. and Heidolph, K. E. (eds.), Progress in Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton, 143–173.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1998. “Partitive Case and Aspect.” In Butt, M. and Geuder, W. (eds.), The Projection of Arguments. Stanford, CA: CSLI, 265–307.Google Scholar
Kitagawa, Y. 1986. “Subjects in Japanese and English.” PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Landau, I. 2006. “Severing the distribution of PRO from Case.” Syntax 9:2, 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 2008. “Two routes of control: Evidence from Case transmission in Russian.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26, 877–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, A. 1991. “Case and licensing.” In Westphal, G. F., Ao, B., and Chae, H.-R. (eds.), ESCOL '91: Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, CLC Publications, 234–253.Google Scholar
Martín, T. 2012. “Deconstructing Catalan object clitics.” PhD dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
Martín, T. and Hinzen, W. 2014. “The grammar of the essential indexical.” Lingua 148, 95–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattos, O. and Hinzen, W. 2015. “The linguistic roots of natural pedagogy.” Frontiers in Psychology 6, 1424. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McFadden, T. 2004. “The position of morphological case in the derivation: A study on the syntax-morphology interface.” PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S. 2012. Case, Argument Structure, and Word Order. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ndayiragije, J. 2012. “On raising out of control.” Linguistic Inquiry 43:2, 275–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, D. and Torrego, E. 2011. “Case.” In Boeckx, C. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 52–72.Google Scholar
Sheehan, M. and Hinzen, W. 2011. “Moving towards the edge.” Linguistic Analysis 37, 405–458.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 2004. “The syntax of person, tense and speech features.” Italian Journal of Linguistics 16, 219–251.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 2008. “The case of PRO.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26, 403–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, P. 2007. “Interpreting uninterpretable features.” Linguistic Analysis 3–4, 375–413.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, T. 2010. “The nanosyntax of Nguni noun class prefixes and concords.” Lingua 120, 1522–1548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travis, L. deMena 2010. Inner Aspect: The Articulation of VP. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, J. 2008. Syntactic Anchors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, J. 2012. “Against the Movement Theory of Control: Another argument from Icelandic.” Linguistic Inquiry 43:2, 322–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Baker, Mark C. 1996. The Polysynthetic Parameter. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2003. Lexical Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron Cohen, S., Leslie, Alan M., and Frith, Uta. 1985. “Does the autistic child have a ‘theory of mind’?” Cognition 21: 37–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berwick, Robert C., and Chomsky, Noam. 2016. Why Only Us: Language and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bustos, Pablo, Manso, Luis, Bandera, J. P., Romero-Garcés, Adrián, Calderita, Luis, Marfil, Rebeca and Bandera, Antonio. 2015. “A unified internal representation of the outer world for social robotics,” in Reis, L. P., Moreira, A. P., Lima, P. U., Montano, L., and Muñoz-Martínez, V. (eds.), ROBOTS 2015: Second Iberian Robotics Conference. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 733–744.Google Scholar
Embick, David. 2015. “The morpheme: a theoretical introduction.” Ms., University of Pennsylvania.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David, and Marantz, Alec. 2008. “Architecture and blocking.” Linguistic Inquiry 39, 1: 1–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Kenneth, and Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1992. “On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations,” in Hale and Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 53–110.Google Scholar
Harnard, Stevan. 2005. “To cognize is to categorize: cognition is categorization,” in Cohen, Henri, and Lefebvre, Claire (eds.), Handbook of Categorization in Cognitive Science. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 20–42.Google Scholar
Heinrich, Joseph. 2015. The Secret of Our Success. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstadter, Douglas. 1995. Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
López, Luis. 2012. Indefinite Objects: Scrambling, Choice Functions and Differential Marking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ormazabal, Javier, and Romero, Juan. 2007. “The object agreement constraint.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25, 2: 315–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ormazabal, Javier, and Romero, Juan. 2013. “Object clitics, agreement, and dialectal variation.” Probus 25, 2: 301–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1996. “Warps: some thoughts on categorization.” Cuadernos de Lingüística del I.U. Ortega y Gasset 4: 1–38.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. “Multiple spell out,” in Epstein, S. D., and Hornstein, N. (eds.), Working Minimalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 251–282.Google Scholar
References
Baker, M. 1997. “Thematic Roles and Grammatical Categories,” in Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 73–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. 2003. Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barwise, J. and Cooper, R. 1981. “Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language,” Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, H. 2005. Structuring Sense (vols. I and II). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burge, T. 1973. “Reference and Proper Names,” Journal of Philosophy 70: 425–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, A. 1999. The Origins of Complex Language: An Inquiry into the Evolutionary Beginnings of Sentences, Syllables, and Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G. 1984. “Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000. “Minimalist Inquiries,” in Martin, R., Michaels, D., Uriagereka, J., and Keyser, S. J. (eds.), Step by Step: Essays in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 89–155.Google Scholar
Chung, S. and Ladusaw, W. 2003. Restriction and Saturation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Church, A. 1941. The Calculi of Lambda Conversion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. 1967. “The Logical Form of Action Sentences,” in Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 105–122.Google Scholar
Frege, G. 1879. Begriffsschrift. Halle: Louis Nebert. English translation in From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931, ed. van Heijenoort, J.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967.Google Scholar
Frege, G. 1884. Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik. Breslau: Wilhelm Koebner. English translation in The Foundations of Arithmetic, trans. Austin, J. L.. Oxford: Blackwell, 1974.Google Scholar
Frege, G. 1892. “Function and Concept,” in Geach, P. and Black, M. (eds. and trans.), Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege. Oxford: Blackwell, 1980, pp. 192–205.Google Scholar
Heim, I. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. University of Massachusetts: Ph.D. dissertation; published 1989, New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Heinz, J. and Idsardi, William J. 2011. “Sentence and Word Complexity,” Science 333: 295–297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heinz, J. and Idsardi, William J. 2013. “What Complexity Differences Reveal about Domains in Language,” Topics in Cognitive Science 5: 111–131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herburger, E. 2000. What Counts: Focus and Quantification. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higginbotham, J. and May, R. 1981. “Questions, Quantifiers, and Crossing,” The Linguistic Review 1: 47–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. 2009. A Theory of Syntax: Minimal Operations and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horty, J. 2007. Frege on Definitions: A Case Study of Semantic Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Joshi, A., Shanker, K., and Weir, D. 1990. “The Convergence of Mildly Context-Sensitive Grammar Formalisms.” University of Pennsylvania Technical Reports (CIS). Paper 539. http://repository.upenn.edu/cis_reports/539.Google Scholar
Kamp, H. 1981. “A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation,” repr. in Portner and Partee 2002, pp. 189–222.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. 1996. “Severing the External Argument from its Verb,” in Rooryck, J. and Zaring, L. (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 109–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohndal, T. 2014. Phrase Structure and Argument Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partee, B. 2006. “Do We Need Two Basic Types?” in 40–60 Puzzles for Manfred Krifka. www.zas.gwz-berlin.de/40-60-puzzles-for-krifka.Google Scholar
Pietroski, P. 2005. Events and Semantic Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pietroski, P. 2014. “Lexicalizing and Combining,” in de Almeida, R. and Manouilidou, C. (eds.), Verb Concepts: Cognitive Science Perspectives on Verb Representation and Processing. New York: Springer, pp. 43–66.Google Scholar
Pietroski, P. 2018. Conjoining Meanings: Semantics Without Truth Values. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pietroski, P. Forthcoming. “Semantic Typology and Composition,” to appear in Rabern, B. and Ball, D. (eds.), The Science of Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Portner, P. and Partee, B. (eds.) 2002. Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. 1963. “On What There Is,” in From a Logical Point of View. New York: Harper and Row, pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
Schein, B. 2002. “Events and the Semantic Content of Thematic Relations,” in Preyer, G. and Peters, G. (eds.), Logical Form and Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 91–117.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. 1944. “The Semantic Conception of Truth,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 4: 341–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, J. and Pietroski, P. 2001. “Dimensions of Natural Language,” University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 10. Repr. 2002, in Uriagereka, J., Derivations. London: Routledge, pp. 266–287.Google Scholar
Williams, A. 2007. “Patients in Igbo and Mandarin,” in Dölling, J. and Heye-Zybatow, T. (eds.), Event Structures in Linguistic Form and Interpretation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 3–30.Google Scholar
Williams, A. 2015. Arguments in Syntax and Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Balari, Sergio, Benıtez-Burraco, Antonio, Camps, Marta, Longa, Vıctor M., Lorenzo, Guillermo & Uriagereka, Juan. 2011. “The archaeological record speaks: bridging anthropology and linguistics,” International Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2011. doi: 10.4061/2011/382679CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beaumont, Peter B. & Bednarik, Robert G.. 2013. “Tracing the emergence of palaeoart in sub-Saharan Africa,” Rock Art Research 30: 33–54.Google Scholar
Berwick, Robert C. & Chomsky, Noam. 2016. Why Only Us: Language and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berwick, Robert, Beckers, Gabriel, Okanoya, Kazuo & Bolhuis, Johan. 2012. “A bird's eye view of human language evolution,” Frontiers in Evolutionary Neuroscience 4(5). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnevo.2012.00005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berwick, Robert C., Pietroski, Paul, Yankama, Beracah & Chomsky, Noam. 2011. “Poverty of the stimulus revisited,” Cognitive Science 35: 1207–1242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boeckx, Cedric. 2015. Elementary Syntactic Structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bolhuis, Johan J. & Everaert, Marin. 2013. Birdsong, Speech, and Language: Exploring the Evolution of Mind and Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boolos, George, Burgess, John P. & Jeffrey, Richard C.. 2002. Computability and Logic (4th edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromberger, Sylvain & Halle, Morris. 1989. “Why phonology is different,” Linguistic Inquiry 20: 51–70.Google Scholar
Büchi, Julius R. 1960. “Weak second-order arithmetic and finite automata,” Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik 6: 66–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Peter J. 1994. Combinatorics: Topics, Techniques, Algorithms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Camps, Marta & Uriagereka, Juan. 2006. “The Gordian Knot of linguistic fossils,” in Rosselló, Joana & Martín, Jesús (eds.), The Biolinguistic Turn: Issues on Language and Biology. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona, pp. 34–65.Google Scholar
Carey, Susan. 2001. “Cognitive foundations of arithmetic: evolution and ontogenesis,” Mind and Language 16: 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1956. “Three models for the description of language,” I.R.E. Transactions on Information Theory 2(3): 113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1959. “On certain formal properties of grammars,” Information and Control 2(2): 137–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1963. “Formal properties of grammar,” in Luce, R. Duncan, Bush, R. R. & Galanter, E. (eds.), Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. II. New York: John Wiley, pp. 323–418.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. “Minimalist inquiries: the framework,” in Martin, Roger, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by Step. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 91–155.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2007. “Approaching UG from below,” in Sauerland, Uli and Gärtner, Hans-Martin (eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language?: Chomsky's Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. “On phases,” in Otero, Carlos P. and Zubizarreta, M.-L. (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 133–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Cobham, Alan. 1965. “The intrinsic computational difficulty of functions,” in Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua (ed.), Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science: Proceedings of the 1964 International Congress. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 24–30.Google Scholar
Elfner, Emily. 2015. “Recursion in prosodic phrasing: evidence from Connemara Irish,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33(4): 1169–1208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elordieta, Gorka. 2015. “Recursive phonological phrasing in Basque,” Phonology 32: 49–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, Robert & Vijay-Shanker, K.. 2001. “Primitive c-command,” Syntax 4: 164–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graf, Thomas. 2009. “Comparing incomparable frameworks: a model theoretic approach to phonology,” talk presented at the 33rd Penn Linguistics Colloquium (PLC33), March 27–29, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Graf, Thomas. 2014. “Beyond the apparent: cognitive parallels between syntax and phonology,” in Schütze, Carson T. & Stockall, Linnaea (eds.), Connectedness: Papers by and for Sarah van Wagenen, UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 161–174.Google Scholar
Graf, Thomas. 2015. “A computational guide to the dichotomy of features and constraints,” talk presented at DGfS 2015, March 4–6, University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Graf, Thomas & Heinz, Jeffrey. 2015. “Commonality in disparity: the computational view of syntax and phonology,” talk presented at GLOW 38, April 15–18, Paris.Google Scholar
Harris, John W. & Stocker, Horst. 1998. Handbook of Mathematics and Computational Science. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, Marc, Chomsky, Noam & Fitch, Tecumseh. 2002. “The faculty of language: what is it, who has it and how did it evolve?” Science 298: 1569–1579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heinz, Jeffrey & Idsardi, William J.. 2011. “Sentence and word complexity,” Science 333: 295–297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heinz, Jeffrey & Idsardi, William J. 2013. “What complexity differences reveal about domains in language,” Topics in Cognitive Science 5: 111–131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heinz, Jeffrey & Rogers, James. 2013. “Learning subregular classes of languages with factored deterministic automata,” in Kornai, Andras and Kuhlmann, Marco (eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Meeting on the Mathematics of Language. Sofia: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 64–71.Google Scholar
Hopcroft, John E. & Ullman, Jeffrey D.. 1979. Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert & Idsardi, William J.. 2014. “A program for the Minimalist Program,” in Kosta, Peter, Franks, Steven L., Radeva-Bork, Teodora & Schürcks, Lilia (eds.), Minimalism and Beyond: Radicalizing the Interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 9–36.Google Scholar
Idsardi, William J. 2008. “Combinatorics for metrical feet,” Biolinguistics 2: 233–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Idsardi, William J. & Raimy, Eric. 2013. “Three types of linearization and the temporal aspects of speech,” in Biberauer, Theresa and Roberts, Ian (eds.), Challenges to Linearization. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Idsardi, William J. & Uriagereka, Juan. 2009. “Metrical combinatorics and the real half of the Fibonacci sequence,” Biolinguistics 3: 404–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin. 2003. Japanese Morphophonemics: Markedness and Word Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin 2012. “Recursive prosodic phrasing in Japanese,” in Borowsky, Toni, Kawahara, Shigeto, Shinya, Takahito & Sugahara, Mariko (eds.), Prosody Matters: Essays in Honor of Elisabeth Selkirk. London: Equinox, pp. 280–303.Google Scholar
Joshi, Aravind K., Vijay-Shanker, K. & Weir, David. 1990. The Convergence of Mildly Context-Sensitive Grammar Formalisms. Technical Report 539, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Karlsson, Fred. 2010. “Recursion and iteration,” in van der Hulst, (2010a), pp. 43–68.Google Scholar
Kershenbaum, Arik, Blumstein, Daniel T., Roch, Marie A., Akçay, Çaglar, Backus, Gregory, Bee, Mark A., Bohn, Kirsten, Cao, Yan, Carter, Gerald, Cäsar, Cristiane, Coen, Michael, DeRuiter, Stacy L., Doyle, Laurance, Edelman, Shimon, Ferrer-i-Cancho, Ramon, Freeberg, Todd M., Garland, Ellen C., Gustison, Morgan, Harley, Heidi E., Huetz, Chloé, Hughes, Melissa, Bruno, Julia Hyland, Ilany, Amiyaal, Jin, Dezhe Z., Johnson, Michael, Ju, Chenghui, Karnowski, Jeremy, Lohr, Bernard, Manser, Marta B., McCowan, Brenda, Mercado, Eduardo III, Narins, Peter M., Piel, Alex, Rice, Megan, Salmi, Roberta, Sasahara, Kazutoshi, Sayigh, Laela, Shiu, Yu, Taylor, Charles, Vallejo, Edgar E., Waller, Sara & Zamora-Gutierrez, Veronica. 2016. “Acoustic sequences in non-human animals: a tutorial review and prospectus,” Biological Reviews 91(1): 13–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kinsella, Anna R. 2010. “Was recursion the key step in the evolution of the human language faculty?” in van der Hulst, (2010a), pp. 179–191.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. “‘Elsewhere’ in phonology,” in Anderson, Stephen & Kiparsky, Paul (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, pp. 93–106.Google Scholar
Kirchner, Robert. 1997. “Contrastiveness and faithfulness,” Phonology 14: 83–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1986. “Intonational phrasing: the case for recursive prosodic structure,” Phonology Yearbook 3: 311–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, Mark. 2006. Starlings. Language Log blog post, http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/myl/languagelog/archives/003076.htmlGoogle Scholar
Lipovaca, Miran. 2011. Learn You a Haskell for Great Good! San Francisco: No Starch Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Roger & Uriagereka, Juan. 2015. “Syntactic first-merge and categorial labels,” manuscript.Google Scholar
Okanoya, Kazuo. 2013. “Finite-state song syntax in Bengalese finches: sensorimotor evidence, developmental processes, and formal procedures for syntax extraction,” in Bolhuis & Everaert (2013), pp. 229–242.Google Scholar
Olmstead, Mary C. & Kuhlmeier, Valerie A.. 2014. Comparative Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pietroski, Paul. 2003. “Quantification and second-order monadicity,” Philosophical Perspectives 17: 259–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pietroski, Paul. 2011. “Minimal semantic instructions,” in Boeckx, Cedric (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 472–498.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan S. & Smolensky, Paul. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey. 2013. “The central question in comparative syntactic metatheory,” Mind & Language 28: 492–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuland, Eric. 2013. “Recursivity of language: what can birds tell us about it?” in Bolhuis & Everaert (2013), pp. 209–228.Google Scholar
Rogers, Hartley. 1967. Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective Computability. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Rogers, James. 2003. “wMSO theories as grammar formalisms,” Theoretical Computer Science 293: 291–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, James and Hauser, Marc D.. 2010. “The use of formal language theory in studies of artificial language learning: a proposal for distinguishing the differences between human and nonhuman animal learners,” in van der Hulst, (2010a), pp. 213–231.Google Scholar
Rogers, James and Pullum, Geoffrey. 2011. “Aural pattern recognition experiments and the Subregular hierarchy,” Journal of Language, Logic and Information 20: 329–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, Bridget D. 2015a. “Can a bird brain do phonology?” Frontiers in Psychology. ePub.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Samuels, Bridget D. 2015b. “Biolinguistics in phonology: a prospectus,” Phonological Studies 18: 161–171.Google Scholar
Savitch, Walter P. 1982. Abstract Machines and Grammars. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.Google Scholar
Stroustrup, Bjarne. 2013. The C++ Programming Language (4th edn), Indianapolis: Pearson.Google Scholar
Surridge, Alison K., Osorio, Daniel & Mundy, Nicholas I.. 2003. “Evolution and selection of trichromatic vision in primates,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18: 198–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiede, Hans-Jörg & Neff Stout, Lawrence. 2010. “Recursion, infinity, and modeling,” in van der Hulst, (2010a), pp. 147–158.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1998. Rhyme and Reason: An Introduction to Minimalist Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 2008. Syntactic Anchors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 2012. Spell-out and the Minimalist Program. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry. 2010a. Recursion and Human Language. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry. 2010b. “A note on recursion in phonology,” in van der Hulst, (2010a), pp. 301–342.Google Scholar
Vijay-Shanker, K. 1988. “A study of tree-adjoining grammars,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Wagner, Michael. 2005. “Prosody and recursion,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Wagner, Michael. 2010. “Prosody and recursion in coordinate structures and beyond,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 28: 183–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weir, David J. 1992. “A geometric hierarchy beyond context-free languages,” Theoretical Computer Science 104: 235–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weir, David J. 1994. “Linear iterated pushdowns,” Computational Intelligence 10: 431–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wirth, Niklaus. 1986. Algorithms and Data Structures. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
References
Baker, C. L. and McCarthy, J. (eds.). 1981. The logical problem of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Clark, R. 1992. “The selection of syntactic knowledge.” Language Acquisition 2: 83–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobzhansky, T. 1964. “Biology, molecular and organismic.” American Zoologist 4: 443–452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dresher, B. E. 1999. “Charting the learning path: Cues to parameter setting.” Linguistic Inquiry 30: 27–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givon, T. 2009. The genesis of syntactic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. 2007. The genesis of grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heycock, C., Sorace, A., Hansen, Z. S., Wilson, F., and Vikner, S. 2012. “Detecting the late stages of syntactic change: The loss of V-to-T in Faroese.” Language 88: 558–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, A. 1989. “Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change.” Language Variation and Change 1: 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.). 2017. Cambridge handbook of historical syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 1999. The development of language: Acquisition, change and evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 2006. How new languages emerge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 2013. “Types of explanation in history.” Language 89/4: 18–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 2017a. “Acquisition and learnability.” In Cambridge handbook of historical syntax, ed. Ledgeway, A. and Roberts, I.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. W. 2017b. “Imperfect transmission and discontinuity.” In Cambridge handbook of historical syntax, ed. Ledgeway, A. and Roberts, I.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 515–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niyogi, P. 2006. The computational nature of language learning and evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, W. 2007. Child language: The parametric approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, A. 1995. “Predicting the progressive passive: Parametric change within a lexicalist framework.” Language 71: 533–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Aitchison, Jean. 2003. Words in the Mind: An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Berlin, Brent, and Kay, Paul. 1969. Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cernuda, Luis. 1994. Prosa I. Obra completa, volumen II. Edición a cargo de Derek Harris y Luis Maristany. Barcelona: Ediciones Siruela (2nd edn. 2002).Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1969. “Some observations on the teaching of language,” The Pedagogic Reporter 21.1: 5–6 & 13.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1991. “Language, politics, and composition: A conversation with Noam Chomsky,” conducted and transcribed by Olson, Gary A. and Faigley, Lester, Journal of Advanced Composition 11.1: 4–35.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1992a. “Explaining language use,” in The Philosophy of Hilary Putnam, ed. Hill, C. S.. Fayetteville, NC: Open Court.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1992b. “Explaining language use,” Philosophical Topics 20: 205–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1993. “A minimalist program for linguistic theory,” in The View from Building 20, ed. Hale, Ken and Keyser, Samuel J.. 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 2000. New Horizons in the Study of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 1997. English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (http://dannyreviews.com/h/English_Global_Language.html).Google Scholar
Dahl, Hartvig. 1979. Word Frequencies of Spoken American English. Essex, CT: Verbatim.Google Scholar
Deutscher, Guy. 2010. Through the Language Glass: Why the World Looks Different in Other Languages. New York: Metropolitan Books.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 2001. Lexicon and Grammar: The English Syntacticon. Berlin and New York: Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabb, Nigel, and Halle, Morris. 2008. Meter in Poetry: A New Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García Calvo, Agustín. 1983. Shakespeare: The Sonnets. Texto crítico y traducción en verso. Barcelona: Editorial Anagrama.Google Scholar
Grayson, Gabriel. 2003. Talking with Your Hands, Listening with Your Eyes: A Complete Photographic Guide to American Sign Language. New York: Square One.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken, and Keyser, Samuel J. (eds.). 1993. The View from Building 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hardin, C. L., and Maffi, Luisa (eds.). 1997. Color Categories in Thought and Language. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, C. S. (ed.). 1992. The Philosophy of Hilary Putnam. Fayetteville, NC: Open Court.Google Scholar
Katamba, Francis. 2005. English Words: Structure, History, Usage. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 2008. “Comparative syntax and the lexicon” (ms., New York University), Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française – CMLF'08. (French version available at www.linguistiquefrancaise.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/cmlf/pdf/2008/01/cmlf08350.pdf.)Google Scholar
McCrum, Robert. 2010. Globish: How the English Language Became the World's Language. New York and London: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Otero, Carlos P. 1966. “Las sílabas de la poesía.” Papeles de Son Armadans. CXIX. 141–72. Reprinted (with additions) in Otero, Letras I. Barcelona: Seix Barral.Google Scholar
Otero, Carlos P. 1996. “Language growth after puberty?” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19: 677–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piera, Carlos. 1980. “Spanish verse and the theory of meter.” Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Piera, Carlos, in collaboration with Fabb, N. and Halle, M.. 2008. “Southern Romance [meters],” in Fabb, and Halle, , pp. 94–132.Google Scholar
Prado, Marcial. 1993. NTC's Dictionary of Spanish False Cognates: A Dictionary of Words in Spanish that Look like English Words but Whose Meanings Are Quite Different. Madrid: NTC Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Pujante, Ángel-Luis. 2009. “Shakespeare's sonnets in Spanish: Rescuing the early verse translations (1),” A Journal of Translation History 3.3 (www.traduccionliteraria.org/1611/art/pujante.htm).Google Scholar
Sacks, David. 2004. Letter Perfect: The Marvelous History of our Alphabet from A to Z. Broadway: Broadway Books.Google Scholar
Shakespeare, William. 1609. The Sonnets of Shakespeare. Edited from the Quarto of 1609 with Introduction and Commentary by Tucker, T. G.. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Library, 1904.Google Scholar
Stavans, Ilan. 2003. Spanglish: The Making of a New American Language. New York: HarperCollins. (With a Spanglish translation of chapter 1 of Don Quixote.)Google Scholar
Weisberg, Jacob (ed.). 2001. George W. Bushisms: The Slate Book of the Accidental Wit and Wisdom of our 43rd President. New York: Fireside.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter (ed.). 2006. Advances in the Theory of the Lexicon. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar