Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T14:28:53.568Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ángel J. Gallego, Phase theory (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 152). Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 2010. Pp. xii+365.

Review products

Ángel J. Gallego, Phase theory (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 152). Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 2010. Pp. xii+365.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2011

Luis Vicente
Luis Vicente*
Affiliation:
Universität Potsdam
*
Author's address:Universität Potsdam, Department Linguistik, Komplex II, Haus 35, Karl-Liebknechtstraße 24–25, D-14476 Golm, Germany[email protected]
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
Reviews
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , November 2011 , pp. 719 - 724
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

Baković, Eric. 1998. Optimality and inversion in Spanish. In Barbosa, Pilar, Fox, Danny, Hagstrom, Paul, McGinnis, Martha & Pesetsky, David (eds.), Is the best good enough? Optimality and competition in syntax, 35–58. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2002. Realizing Germanic inflection: Why morphology does not drive syntax. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 6.2, 129–167.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2003. Islands and chains: Stranding as resumption. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, Roderick A. & Rosenbaum, Peter S. (eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar, 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, Robert, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by step: Essays in Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, (ed.), 1–52.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Belletti, Adriana (ed.), The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 3: Structures and beyond, 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36.1, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2006. On phases. In Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos & Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Sauerland, Uli & Gärtner, Hans-Martin (eds.), Interfaces+recursion=language? Chomsky's Minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics, 1–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gallego, Ángel J. 2007. Phase theory and parametric variation. Ph.D. dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.). 2001. Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Kenstowicz, (ed.), 355–426.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther. 2004. Tense, Case, and the nature of syntactic categories. In Guéron, Jacqueline & Lecarme, Jacqueline (eds.), The syntax of time, 495–537. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Torrego, Esther. 1985. On empty categories in nominals. Ms., University of Massachusetts Boston.Google Scholar