Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T03:16:32.323Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

REVIEWS - Glyn Hicks, The derivation of anaphoric relations (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 139). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2009. Pp. xii+309.

Review products

Glyn Hicks, The derivation of anaphoric relations (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 139). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2009. Pp. xii+309.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2010

E. Phoevos Panagiotidis
E. Phoevos Panagiotidis*
Affiliation:
University of Cyprus
*
Author's address:Department of English Studies, University of Cyprus, Kallipoleos 75, PO Box 20537, 1678Nicosia, Cyprus[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 46 , Issue 2 , July 2010 , pp. 508 - 513
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

Adger, David & Svenonius, Peter. 2009. Features in Minimalist syntax, 28 pp. http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000825 (22 March 2010).Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures in Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fiengo, Robert & Higginbotham, James. 1981. Opacity in NP. Linguistic Analysis 7.4, 395–421.Google Scholar
Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2003. Prolific domains: On the anti-locality of movement dependencies. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2008. Copy modification and the architecture of the grammar. Presented at the Mediterranean Syntax Meeting 2, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul.Google Scholar
Horrocks, Geoffrey & Stavrou, Melita. 1987. Bounding Theory and Greek syntax: Evidence for wh-movement in NP. Journal of Linguistics 23.1, 79–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotzoglou, George. To appear. (Non)Extraction from subjects as an edge phenomenon. In Panagiotidis, E. Phoevos (ed.), The complementizer phase: Subjects and operators, 35–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David. 1998. Where does the Binding Theory apply? Technical report 98-044, NEC Research Institute, Princeton.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David. 2009. Where does Binding Theory apply? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 2000. Phases and words, 16 pp. http://homepages.nyu.edu/~ma988/marantz_publications.html (22 March 2010).Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2008. Review of Linguistic Minimalism: Origins, concepts, methods, and aims, 2006. Language 84.2, 387–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1983. The possessor that ran away from home. Linguistic Review 3, 89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar