Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T04:51:55.239Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Samuel David Epstein & Daniel Seely T., Derivations in Minimalism (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 111). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Pp. xvi+217.

Review products

Samuel David Epstein & Daniel Seely T., Derivations in Minimalism (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 111). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Pp. xvi+217.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2008

M. Rita Manzini
M. Rita Manzini*
Affiliation:
Università di Firenze
*
Author's address:Dipartimento di Linguistica, Università di Firenze, via Alfani 31, 50121 Firenze, Italy. [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 44 , Issue 2 , July 2008 , pp. 524 - 530
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

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

Belletti, Adriana. 1988. The case of unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry 19.1, 1–34.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2002. A-movement and the EPP. Syntax 5.3, 167–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, Michael. 1995. Lexico-logical form: A radically minimalist theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. & Ray, Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine. 1993. On nominative case assignment and a few related things. Papers on case and agreement II (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18), 175–194.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David. 1991. Relative clauses, licensing, and the nature of the derivation. In Susan, Rothstein (ed.) Perspectives on phrase structure: Heads and licensing (Syntax and Semantics 25), 209–239. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita. To appear. Pro, pro and NP-trace (raising) are interpretations. In Kleanthes, Grohmann (ed.) Phase theory: Features, arguments, interpretations. Amsterdam & London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita & Roussou, Anna. 2000. A Minimalist theory of A-movement and control. Lingua 110.6, 409–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita & Savoia, M. Leonardo. 2007. A unification of morphology and syntax: Investigations into Romance and Albanian dialects. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19.3, 425–449.Google Scholar
Torrego, Esther. 2002. Arguments for a derivational approach to syntactic relations based on clitics. In Samuel, Epstein D. & Seely, T. Daniel eds. Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist Program, 249–268. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1982. The NP cycle. Linguistic Inquiry 13.2, 277–295.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1989. The anaphoric nature of θ-roles. Linguistic Inquiry 20.3, 425–456.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1994. Thematic structure in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar