Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T10:37:55.160Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gert Webelhuth (ed.), Government and binding theory and the minimalist program. Oxford & Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, 1995. Pp.ix+483.

Review products

Gert Webelhuth (ed.), Government and binding theory and the minimalist program. Oxford & Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, 1995. Pp.ix+483.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Stanley Dubinsky
Stanley Dubinsky
Affiliation:
University of South Carolina
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 32 , Issue 2 , September 1996 , pp. 517 - 522
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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

Aoun, J., Hornstein, N., Lightfoot, D. & Weinberg, A. (1987). Two types of locality. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 537–577.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (1988). Incorporation: a theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. & Kanerva, J. (1989). Locative inversion in Chichewa: a case study of factorization in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 1–50.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. & Moshi, L. (1990). Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 147–185.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R. A. & Rosenbaum, P. S. (eds.) English transformational grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn. 184–221.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, S. & Kiparsky, P. (eds.) A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 232–286.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. (Studies in Generative Grammar 9.) Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986a). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986b). Knowledge of language: its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1994). Introduction to government and binding theory. (2nd ed.) Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (eds.) The view from Building 20: essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1981). ECP extensions. Linguistic Inquiry 12. 93–133.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. & Saito, M. (1984). On the nature of property government. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 235–289.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. & Uriagereka, J. (1988). A course in GB syntax: lectures on binding and empty categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (1992). Deconstructing morphology: word formation in syntactic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sadock, J. (1991). Autolexical syntax: a theory of parallel grammatical representations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Stowell, T. (1993). Subjects across categories. The Linguistic Review 2. 285–312.Google Scholar
Van Reimsdijk, H. & Williams, E. (1986). Introduction to the theory of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar