Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T05:35:27.402Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Daniel Harbour, David Adger & Susana Béjar (eds.), Phi theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 16). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Pp. xiii+367.

Review products

Daniel Harbour, David Adger & Susana Béjar (eds.), Phi theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 16). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Pp. xiii+367.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2010

Hedde Zeijlstra
Hedde Zeijlstra*
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam
*
Author's address: Faculty of Humanities, University of Amsterdam, Spuistraat 134, 1012 VB Amsterdam, The Netherlands[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 3 , November 2010 , pp. 739 - 748
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

Béjar, Susana & Řezáč, Milan. 2009. Cyclic Agree. Linguistic Inquiry 40.1, 35–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2000. The ins and outs of contextual allomorphy. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics (UMWPiL) 10, 35–71.Google Scholar
Calabrese, Andrea. 1998. Metaphony revisited. Rivista di Linguistica 10.1, 7–68.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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
Cooper, Robin. 1983. Quantification and syntactic theory. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1997. Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment and fission. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 30, 425–439.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Ritter, Elizabeth. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78.3, 482–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene & Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 2004. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) VIII, 92–110.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. The Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) 8, 234–253.Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew. 2005. Contrastive specification of person on syntactic arguments. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 11, 103–137.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1989. Binding implicit variables in quantified contexts. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 25.1, 342–356.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli, Anderssen, Jan & Yatsushiro, Katsuko. 2005. The plural is semantically unmarked. In Kepser, Stephan & Reis, Marga (eds.), Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical, and computational perspectives, 409–430. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Trommer, Jochen. 2002. The interaction of morphology and syntax in affix order. In Booij, Geert & Marle, Jaap van (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2002, 283–324. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1994. Remarks on lexical knowledge. Lingua 92.1–4, 7–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar