Part I - Configuration and Hierarchy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: aN Invalid Date NaN
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Continuing SyntaxHierarchy and Locality, pp. 1 - 194Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Primary Sources
Anderson, S. & Lightfoot, D.. 2002. The Language Organ: Linguistics as Cognitive Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapters 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnie, A. 2002/2006. Syntax: A Generative Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, Chapter 1.Google Scholar
Cook, V. & Newson, M.. 1996/2007. Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, Chapters 1 and 3.Google Scholar
Crain, S. & Lillo-Martin, D.. 1999. An Introduction to Linguistic Theory and Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, Chapter 1.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. 1997. Principles and Parameters: An introduction to syntactic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Chapter 1.Google Scholar
Freidin, R. 2012. Syntax: Basic Concepts and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapters 2–4.Google Scholar
Guasti, M.T. 2016. Language Acquisition: The growth of grammar. 2nd edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Chapter 1.Google Scholar
Huybregts, R, van Riemsdijk, H, Fukui, N & Zushi, M (eds.) 2004. The Generative Enterprise Revisited. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Chapters 2 and 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, P. 1996. Grammatical Theory in the United States from Bloomfield to Chomsky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapter 4.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. 1996. Generative Linguistics: A historical perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ouhalla, J. 1999. Introducing Transformational Grammar: From principles and parameters to minimalism. London: Arnold, Chapter 1.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. 1994. The Language Instinct. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.10.1037/e412952005-009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. 1988. Transformational Grammar: A first course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapter 1.Google Scholar
Radford, A. 1997. Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English: A minimalist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapter 1.10.1017/CBO9781139166706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. 2004. Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. 2016. Analysing English Sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapters 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, I. & Wasow, T.. 1999. Syntactic Theory: A formal introduction. Stanford: CSLI Publications, Appendix B.Google Scholar
Smith, N. 1999/2004. Chomsky: Ideas and ideals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapters 1–4.Google Scholar
Tomalin, M. 2006. Linguistics and the Formal Sciences: The origins of generative grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Secondary Sources
Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures. Mouton: The Hague.10.1515/9783112316009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1959. A Review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Language 35 1: 26–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1968/2006. Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511791222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its nature, origin, and use. London: Praeger, Chapters 1–4.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000. New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2002. On Nature and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapters 1–4.10.1017/CBO9780511613876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2004a. Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. In Belletti, A. (ed.). Structures and Beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 104–31.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2004b. The Generative Enterprise: Noam Chomsky in discussion with Riny Huybrechts and Henk van Riemsdijk. In Noam Chomsky: The generative enterprise revisited. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2021. Genuine explanation. In Bocci, Giuliano, Botteri, Daniele, Manetti, Claudia & Moscati, Vincenzo (eds.), Rich Descriptions and Simple Explanations in Morphosyntax and Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borsley, R. 1991. Syntactic Theory: A unified approach. London: Longman, Chapters 2–4.Google Scholar
Carnie, A. 2002. Syntax: A generative introduction. London: Blackwell, Chapters 2 and 3.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. 1997. Principles and Parameters: An introduction to syntactic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Chapter 1.10.1093/oso/9780198700159.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P. 1999. Syntactic Nuts: Hard cases, syntactic theory, and language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Chapter 2; for consideration of less straightforward cases.10.1093/oso/9780198700241.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freidin, R. 2012. Syntax: Basic Concepts and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapters 2–4.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 1995. An Introduction to Government and Binding. London: Blackwell, Chapter 1.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 2006. Thinking Syntactically: A guide to argumentation and analysis. Oxford: Blackwell, Chapters 2 and 3.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. & Guéron, J.. 1999. English Grammar: A generative perspective. London: Blackwell, Chapter 1; particularly sub-sections 2.1–2.3.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. 1984. Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, relevants parts of Chapter 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouhalla, J. 1994/1999. Introducing Transformational Grammar. London: Arnold, Chapters 2 and 3 of either edition.Google Scholar
Radford, A. 1988. Transformational Grammar: A first course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapters 2–5.10.1017/CBO9780511840425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. 2004. Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapters 2 and 3.10.1017/CBO9780511811319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. 2016. Analysing English Sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapters 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A., Atkinson, M., Britain, D., Clahsen, H. & Spencer, A.. 1999. Linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapters 17–19 and 22.Google Scholar
Smith, N. 1999. Chomsky: Ideas and Ideals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapter 1 and the relevant parts of Chapter 2.Google Scholar
Sportiche, D., Koopman, H., & Stabler, E.. 2013. An Introduction to Syntactic Analysis and Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, Chapter 3.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. & LaPolla, R.. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapter 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. 2001. Phrase structure as a representation of grammatical relations. In Davies, William D. & Dubinsky, Stanley (eds.), Objects and Other Subjects: Grammatical functions, functional categories and configurationality. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 21–52.10.1007/978-94-010-0991-1_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, J. 1997. Subjecthood and Subject Positions. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 197–235.10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnie, A. 2013. Syntax: A generative introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, Chapters 4, 5, 17.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2023. Beginning Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapter 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, D. 1977. Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 4: 157–89.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. & Postal, P.. 1983a. Some proposed laws of basic clause structure. In Perlmutter, D. (ed.), Studies in Relational Grammar 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 81–128.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. & Postal, P.. 1983b. Towards a universal characterisation of passivisation. In Perlmutter, D. (ed.), Studies in Relational Grammar 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 3–29.Google Scholar
Akkuş, F., Legate, J., Ringe, D. & Šereikaitė, M.. 2020. On passives. Language 96: 771–818.Google Scholar
Baker, M., Johnson, K. & Roberts, I.. 1989. Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 219–51.Google Scholar
Bruening, B. 2013. By phrases in passives and nominals. Syntax 16:1–41.10.1111/j.1467-9612.2012.00171.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, C. 2024. Principles of argument structure: a Merge-based approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/15436.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallulli, D. 2007. Rethinking the passive/anticausative distinction. Linguistic Inquiry 38 (4): 770–80.10.1162/ling.2007.38.4.770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. C. 1996. On the structural positions of themes and goals. In Rooryck, Johan & Zaring, Laurie (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 7–34. A classic presentation of UTAH.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. C. 1997. Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 73–137. A classic presentation of UTAH.10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barss, A. & Lasnik, H.. 1986. A note on anaphora and double objects. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 347–54. Very short but absolutely crucial empirical arguments paving the way for the postulation of VP-shells. Also a nice illustration of c-command tests in action.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L.. 1988. Pysch verbs and theta theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 291–352. The classic paper on verbs of this class, opening up a significant sub-literature.Google Scholar
Koopman, H. & Sportiche, D.. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua 85: 211–58. Probably the best original primary-research paper advocating VISH.10.1016/0024-3841(91)90022-WCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, R. K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–91. The original proposal for VP-shells; a classic.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 281–337. The most influential and elaborated theory of the ‘split-CP’.10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sportiche, D. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 425–49. A further argument for VISH, beautifully and intricately developed.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 1994. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory, Second edition. Oxford: Blackwell, Chapters 6, 7, and 11.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. & Guéron, Jacqueline. 1999. English Grammar: A generative perspective. Oxford: Blackwell, Chapter 2.Google Scholar
Radford, A. 1988. Transformational Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapters 8–10.10.1017/CBO9780511840425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C., Hornstein, N. & Nunes, J.. 2010. Control as Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511761997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69–96.10.1162/002438999553968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 2003. Movement out of control. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 471–98.10.1162/002438903322247560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I, 2004. The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 811–77.10.1007/s11049-004-4265-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 2013. Control in Generative Grammar: A research companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139061858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 2015. A Two-tiered Theory of Control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262028851.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adger, D. 2003. Core Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Chapter 2.10.1093/oso/9780199243709.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adger, D. & Svenonius, P.. 2011. Features in minimalist syntax. In Boeckx, C. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 27–51.Google Scholar
Adger, D. 2003. Core Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Chapter 6.10.1093/oso/9780199243709.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koeneman, O. & Zeijlstra, H.. 2017. Introducing Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapters 3–8.10.1017/9781316156391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2001. Relativized minimality effects. In Baltin, M. & Collins, C. (eds.) The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 89–110.10.1002/9780470756416.ch4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.