Book contents
- The Cambridge Companion to Chomsky
- The Cambridge Companion to Chomsky
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I The Science of Language: Recent Change and Progress
- 1 The Locality of Transformational Movement: Progress and Prospects
- 2 Is the Faculty of Language a “Perfect Solution” to the Interface Systems?
- 3 On Merge
- 4 A Feeling for the Phenotype
- 5 The Generative Word
- 6 Third Factors in Language Design: Some Suggestions from Quantum Field Theory
- Part II The Human Mind and Its Study
- Part III Chomsky on Politics and Economics
- Index
- References
1 - The Locality of Transformational Movement: Progress and Prospects
from Part I - The Science of Language: Recent Change and Progress
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 July 2017
Edited by
Book contents
- The Cambridge Companion to Chomsky
- The Cambridge Companion to Chomsky
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I The Science of Language: Recent Change and Progress
- 1 The Locality of Transformational Movement: Progress and Prospects
- 2 Is the Faculty of Language a “Perfect Solution” to the Interface Systems?
- 3 On Merge
- 4 A Feeling for the Phenotype
- 5 The Generative Word
- 6 Third Factors in Language Design: Some Suggestions from Quantum Field Theory
- Part II The Human Mind and Its Study
- Part III Chomsky on Politics and Economics
- Index
- References
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Companion to Chomsky , pp. 29 - 49Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Berwick, Robert and Weinberg, Amy. 1984. The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W. 1970. “On Complementizers: Towards a Syntactic Theory of Complement Types.” Foundations of Language 6:297–321.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W. 1971. “Sentence Stress and Syntactic Transformations.” Language 47:257–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1955. The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. Ms. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and MIT, Cambridge MA. [Revised 1956 version published in part by Plenum, New York, 1975; University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1985.]Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1964a. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1964b. “The Logical Basis of Linguistic Theory.” In Lunt, Horace, ed. Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, 914–978. Reprinted as “Current Issues in Linguistic Theory.” In Fodor and Katz, eds. Structure of Language. New York: Prentice-Hall. 1964.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. “Remarks on Nominalization.” In Jacobs, Roderick A. and Rosenbaum, Peter S., eds. Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham MA: Ginn and Co. 184–221. [Reprinted in Noam Chomsky, Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, 1972, 11–61.]Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. “Conditions on Transformations.” In Anderson, Stephen and Kiparsky, Paul, eds. A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 232–286.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. “On wh-Movement.” In Culicover, Peter, Wasow, Thomas, and Akmajian, Adrian, eds. Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press. 71–132.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. “A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory.” In Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel J., eds. The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1–52. [Reprinted in Noam Chomsky, The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (1995), 167–217.]Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework.” In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan, eds. Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. “Derivation by Phase.” In Kenstowicz, Michael, ed. Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT. 1–52.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. “Beyond Explanatory Adequacy.” In Belletti, Adriana, ed. Structures and Beyond – The Cartography of Syntactic Structure Vol. 3. Oxford University Press. 104–131.Google Scholar
Epstein, Samuel D. 1999. “Un-Principled Syntax: The Derivation of Syntactic Relations.” In Epstein, Samuel D. and Hornstein, Norbert, eds. Working Minimalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 317–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1969. Some Rules of Semantic Interpretation for English. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 2005. “Grammar, Levels, and Biology.” In McGilvray, James, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Chomsky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marcus, Mitchell. 1980. A Theory of Syntactic Recognition for Natural Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
May, Robert. 1985. Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1991. “Resumptive Pronouns, A’-Binding, and Levels of Representation in Irish.” In Hendrick, Randall, ed. Syntax and Semantics 23: The Syntax of the Modern Celtic Languages. New York: Academic Press. 199–248.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1980. “Violations of the wh-Island Constraint and the Subjacency Condition.” Journal of Italian Linguistics 5:157–195.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Published as Infinite Syntax! Norwood, NJ: Ablex (1986).Google Scholar
Torrego, Esther. 1984. “On Inversion in Spanish and Some of Its Effects.” Linguistic Inquiry 15:103–129.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. “Multiple Spell-Out.” In Epstein, Samuel David and Hornstein, Norbert, eds. Working Minimalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 251–282Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by