Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T12:32:55.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Asymmetric Movement in Raising-to-Object Structures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Kumiko G. Murasugi
Kumiko G. Murasugi*
Affiliation:
Carleton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Squibs/Notules
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 85 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2008 

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

Bard, Ellen, Gurman, Dan Robertson, and Sorace, Antonella. 1996. Magnitude estimation of linguistic grammaticality. Language 72:32–68.Google Scholar
Bever, Thomas G. 1970. The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In Cognition and the development of language, ed. Hayes, John R., 279–362. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1968. Judgments of grammaticality. Lingua 21:34–40.Google Scholar
Borkin, A.M.H. 1974. Raising to object position: A study in the syntax and semantics of clause merging. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna, and Guasti, Maria Teresa, eds. 1995. Syntax and semantics 28: Small clauses. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, John M., Bever, Thomas G., and Pollack, Chava R.. 1981. The non-uniqueness of linguistic intuitions. Language 57:368–383.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1972. Some empirical issues in the theory of transformational grammar. In Goals of linguistic theory, ed. Peters, Stanley, 63–130. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. Anderson, Stephen and Kiparsky, Paul, 232–286. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1991. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, ed. Freidin, Robert, 417–454. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A Minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from Building 20: Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel J., 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik. 1977. Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8:425–504.Google Scholar
Cowart, Wayne. 1997. Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Dabrowska, Eva. 1997. The LAD goes to school: A cautionary tale for nativists. Linguistics 35:735–766.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, Shieber, S.M., and Pereira, F.. 1991. Ellipsis and higher-order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 14:399–452.Google Scholar
Davison, Alice. 1984. Syntactic markedness and the definition of sentence topic. Language 60:797–846.Google Scholar
Derwing, Bruce L. 1980. Against autonomous linguistics. In Evidence and argumentation in linguistics, ed. Perry, T.A., 163–189. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Featherston, Sam. 2005. Universais and grammaticality: Wh- constraints in German and English. Linguistics 43:667–711.Google Scholar
Ferreira, Fernanda, and Henderson, John M.. 1990. Use of verb information in syntactic parsing: Evidence from eye movements and word-by-word self-paced reading. Journal of Experiment Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 16:555–568.Google Scholar
Francis, W. Nelson, and Kučera, Henry. 1982. Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn, and Rayner, Keith. 1982. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology 14:178–210.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney. 1976. Syntactic frequency and grammaticality. Lingua 40:99–113.Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2005. Dimensions of symmetry in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Hong, Soo-Min. 2005. “Exceptional” Case-marking and resultative constructions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A Minimalist theory ofconstrual. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Keller, Frank. 2000. Gradience in grammar. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1975. Empirical foundations of linguistic theory. In The scope of American linguistics, ed. Austerlitz, Robert, 77–133. Lisse, Netherlands: Peter de Ridder.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard, and Saito, Mamoru. 1991. On the subject of infinitives. In Papers from the 27th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. Dobrin, L., Nichols, L., and Rodriguez, R., 324–343. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Levelt, W.J.M. 1974. Formal grammars in linguistics and psycholinguistics III : Psycholinguistic applications.The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Luka, Barbara J., and Barsalou, Lawrence W.. 2005. Structural facilitation: Mere exposure effects for grammatical acceptability as evidence for syntactic priming in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 52:436–459.Google Scholar
Morén, B. 2006. Consonant-vowel interactions in Serbian: Features, representations and constraint interactions. Lingua 116:1198–1244.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 1999. Optimality, markedness, and word order in German. Linguistics 37:777–818.Google Scholar
Nagata, Hiroshi. 1988. The relativity of linguistic intuition: The effect of repetition on grammaticality judgments. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 17:1–17.Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin J., Traxler, Matthew J., and Crocker, Matthew W.. 2000. Ambiguity resolution in sentence processing: Evidence against frequency-based accounts. Journal of Memory and Language 43:447–475.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1974. On raising: One rule of English grammar and its theoretical implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter S. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1972. Clause-matiness. Paper read at the Chicago Linguistic Society, Nov. 31 [sic], 1972. Cited in Borkin 1974.Google Scholar
Runner, Jeffrey. 1995. Noun phrase licensing and interpretation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Runner, Jeffrey. 2006. Lingering challenges to the raising-to-object and object-control constructions. Syntax 9:193–213.Google Scholar
Schiitze, Carson. 1996. The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Snyder, William. 2000. An experimental investigation of syntactic satiation effects. Linguistic Inquiry 31:575–582.Google Scholar
Sorace, Antonella, and Keller, Frank. 2005. Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua 115:1497–1524.Google Scholar
Watt, W.C. 1975. The indiscreteness with which impenetrables are penetrated. Lingua 37:95–128.Google Scholar