Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-fqc5m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T10:25:52.669Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2018

John Bowers
Affiliation:
Cornell University, New York
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

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

Abels, K. and Neeleman, A. 2008. Universal 20 without the LCA. Manuscript, University of Tromsø and University College London.Google Scholar
Abney, S. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Abney, S. 1995. Dependency grammars and context-free grammars. Unpublished draft of a talk presented at the meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, January 1995.Google Scholar
Adam, L. 1897. Matériaux pour servir à l’établissement d’une grammaire comparée des dialectes de la famille Kariri. Bibliothèque Linguistique Américaine 20. Paris: J. Maisonneuve. Reprinted 1968, Nendeln, Lichtenstein: Kraus.Google Scholar
Andrews, A. 1982. A note on the constituent structure of adverbials and auxiliaries. Linguistic Inquiry 13, 313317.Google Scholar
Bailyn, J. 1995a. A Configurational Approach to Russian “Free” Word Order. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Bailyn, J. 1995b. Underlying phrase structure and “short” verb movement in Russian syntax. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 3, 1358.Google Scholar
Bailyn, J. 1995c. Configurational case assignment in Russian syntax. Linguistic Review 12, 315360.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 1988. Theta theory and the syntax of applicatives in Chichewa. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 353389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basse, G. 2008. Factive complements as defective phases. In Abner, N. and Bishop, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 5462. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Bobalijk, J. 1999. Adverbs: the hierarchy paradox. Glot International 4 (9/10), 2728.Google Scholar
Boisson, C. 1981. Hiérarchie universelle des spécifications de temps, de lieu, et de manière. Confluents 7, 69124.Google Scholar
Borer, H. 1998. Deriving passive without theta roles. In Lapointe, S., Brentari, D., and Farrell, P. (eds.), Morphology and its Relations to Phonology and Syntax, 6099. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Borer, H. 2005. Structuring Sense: An Exo-Skeletal Trilogy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borthen, K. 2003. Norwegian Bare Singulars. Doctoral dissertation, Det Historisk-filosofiske Fakultet, Trondheim.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2002. On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 351383.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2005. On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP. Studia Linguistica 59, 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2008. What will you have, DP or NP? In Elfner, E. and Walkow, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the Northeast Linguistic Society 37, 101114. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2009. More on the no-DP analysis of article-less languages. Studia Linguistica 63, 187203.Google Scholar
Bowers, J. 1973. Grammatical Relations. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Reprinted 1985, Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics, New York and London: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Bowers, J. 1991. The syntax and semantics of nominals. In Moore, S. and Wyner, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the First Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, 130. Cornell University Working Papers in Linguistics 10, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Bowers, J. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 591656.Google Scholar
Bowers, J. 1997. A binary analysis of resultatives. In Blight, R. and Moosally, M. (eds.), Texas Linguistic Forum 38: The Syntax and Semantics of Predication, 4358. Austin, TX: Department of Linguistics, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Bowers, J. 1998. On pseudogapping. Unpublished paper, Department of Linguistics, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Bowers, J. 2000. Syntactic relations. Unpublished paper, Department of Linguistics, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Bowers, J. 2001a. Syntactic relations. Manuscript, Department of Linguistics, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Bowers, J. 2001b. Predication. In Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 299333. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bowers, J. 2002. Transitivity. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 183224.Google Scholar
Bowers, J. 2008. On reducing control to movement. Syntax 11, 125143.Google Scholar
Bowers, J. 2010. Arguments as Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. and Kanerva, J. 1989. Locative inversion in Chicheŵa: a case study of factorization in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 150.Google Scholar
Brody, M. 1994. Phrase structure and dependence. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 6, 133.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R. and Rosenbaum, P. (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184221. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1995a. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1995b. Bare phrase structure. In Webelhuth, G. (ed.), Government and Binding and the Minimalist Program, 383439. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., and Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 152. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Belletti, A. (ed.), Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 3, 104131. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. and Lasnik, H. 1977. Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 425504.Google Scholar
Chung, S. 2013. Syntactic identity in sluicing: how much and why. Linguistic Inquiry 44, 144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. 2005. Deriving Greenberg’s Universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 315332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. 2006. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 4: Restructuring and Functional. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cole, P. and Hermon, G. 1998. The typology of wh-movement: wh-questions in Malay. Syntax 1 (3), 221258.Google Scholar
Collins, C. 2002. Eliminating labels. In Epstein, S. and Seely, T. (eds.), Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, 4261. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, C. 2005. A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8, 81120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, C. and Ura, H. 2001. Eliminating phrase structure. Unpublished paper, Cornell University and Kwansei Gakuin University.Google Scholar
Corver, N. 1990. The Syntax of Left Branch Extractions. Doctoral dissertation, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Corver, N. 1991. Evidence for DegP. Proceedings of NELS 21, 3347.Google Scholar
Corver, N. 1997. The internal syntax of the Dutch extended adjectival projection. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15, 289368.Google Scholar
Covington, M. 2001. A fundamental algorithm for dependency parsing. In Miller, J. and Smith, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 39th Annual ACM Southeast Conference, 95102. Athens, GA: Institute for Artificial Intelligence, University of Georgia.Google Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, J. and Merchant, J. 2013. Ellipsis phenomena. In den Dikken, M. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax, 701745. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Debusmann, R. 2000. An introduction to dependency grammar. Hausarbeit für das Hauptseminar Dependenzgrammatik SoSe 99, Universität des Saarlandes.Google Scholar
De Cuba, C. 2006. The adjunction prohibition and extraction from non-factive CPs. In Baumer, D., Montero, D., and Scanlon, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 123131. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Derbyshire, D. and Pullum, G. 1981. Object-initial languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 47, 192214.Google Scholar
Despić, M. 2011. Syntax in the Absence of Determiner Phrase. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Despić, M. 2013. Binding and the structure of NP in Serbo-Croatian. Linguistic Inquiry 44, 239270.Google Scholar
Dobashi, Y. 2003. Phonological Phrasing and Syntactic Derivation. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Doherty, C. 1996. Clausal structure and the modern Irish copula. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14, 146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. 1988. Universals of negative position. In Hammond, M., Moravcsik, E., and Wirth, J. (eds.), Studies in Syntactic Typology, 93124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68, 81138.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. 2007. Word order. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Clause Structure, Language Typology and Syntactic Description 1, second edition. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. 1969. Root and Structure-preserving Transformations. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. 1978. The verbal complex V′-V in French. Linguistic Inquiry 9, 151175.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. 2012. Blackjack!: 21 arguments that agreeing adjectives are derived nominals. In Torrego, E. (ed.), Of Grammar, Words, and Verses: In Honor of Carlos Piera, 171200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ernst, T. 2001. The Syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Freidin, R., Otero, C., and Zubizarreta, M. (eds.) 2008. Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Frey, W. 2000. Syntactic requirements on adjuncts. In Fabricius-Hansen, C., Lang, E., and Maienborn, C. (eds.), Approaching the Grammar of Adjuncts, 107134. Berlin: ZAS Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Gaifman, H. 1965. Dependency systems and phrase-structure systems. Information and Control 8, 304337.Google Scholar
George, L. 1980. Analogical Generalization in Natural Language Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1979. From discourse to syntax: grammar as a processing strategy. In Givón, T. (ed.), Discourse and Syntax, 81109. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goodall, G. 1997. Theta-alignment and the by-phrase. In Singer, K., Eggert, R., and Anderson, G. (eds.), Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 33, 129139. Chicago, IL: Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J. (ed.), Universals of Language, 73113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 2000. Adverb placement: convergence of structure and licensing. Theoretical Linguistics 26, 95134.Google Scholar
Halle, M. and Marantz, A. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 53109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hays, D. G. 1964. Dependency theory: a formalism and some observations. Language 40, 511525.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J. 1987. Indefiniteness and predication. In Reuland, E. and ter Meulen, A. (eds.), The Representation of (In)definiteness, 4370. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hinterhölzl, R. 2001. Event-related adjuncts and the OV/VO distinction. In Megerdoomian, K. and Bar-el, L. (eds.), Proceedings of the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 276289. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Hinterhölzl, R. 2002. Parametric variation and scrambling in English. In Zwart, C. J.-W. and Abraham, W. (eds.), Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax, 131150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Holmer, A. 2005. Antisymmetry and final particles in a Formosan VOS language. In Carnie, A., Harley, H., and Dooley, S. (eds.), Verb First: On the Syntax of Verb-initial Languages, 175201. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 6996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. 2001. Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N., Nunes, J., and Grohmann, K. 2005. Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. 1990. English Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1977. X′ Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jayaseelan, K. 2001. IP-internal topic and focus phrases. Studia Linguistica 55, 3975.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. 2009. Gapping is not (VP-) ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 40, 289328.Google Scholar
Julien, M. 2004. The Syntax of Scandinavian Nominal Phrases. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Julien, M. 2005. Nominal Phrases from a Scandinavian Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kallulli, D. 1999. The Comparative Syntax of Albanian: On the Contribution of Syntactic Types to Propositional Interpretation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Durham.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 2010. Why are there no directionality parameters? Unpublished paper, New York University.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. 1976. Remarkable subjects in Malagasy. In Li, C. (ed.), Subject and Topic, 247301. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kehler, A. 2000. Coherence and the resolution of ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 23, 533575.Google Scholar
Kehler, A. 2002. Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Keyser, S. J. 1968. Review of S. Jacobson, “Adverbial Positions in English” (Uppsala dissertation). Language 44, 357374.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. and Kiparsky, C. 1971. Fact. In Steinberg, D. and Jakobovits, L. (eds.), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology, 345369. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koizumi, M. 1993. Object agreement phrases and the split VP hypothesis. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18, 99148.Google Scholar
Koizumi, M. 1995. Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, International Christian University.Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, B. and Benham, B. 1998. Konda. In Steever, S. (ed.), The Dravidian Languages, 241269. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kučerová, I. 2016. Long-distance agreement in Icelandic: locality restored. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 19, 4974.Google Scholar
Laka, I. 1990. Negation in Syntax: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Larson, R. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335391.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. 1999. On feature strength: three minimalist approaches to overt movement. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 197217.Google Scholar
Li, C. and Thompson, S. 1978. An exploration of Mandarin Chinese. In Lehman, W. (ed.), Syntactic Typology, 223266. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Lobeck, A. 1995. Ellipsis: Functional Heads, Licensing, and Identification. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. 1995. From Merge and Move to Form Dependency. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 7, 323345.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. and Savoia, M. 2011. Grammatical Categories: Variation in Romance Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 1997. No escape from syntax: don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4, 201225.Google Scholar
Matsuoka, M. 2013. On the notion of subject for subject-oriented adverbs. Language 89, 586618.Google Scholar
May, R. 1985. Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. 2005. A note on predicates and heads in Irish clausal syntax. In Carnie, A., Harley, H., and Dooley, S. (eds.), Verb First: On the Syntax of Verb-initial Languages, 155174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
McIntyre, A. 2001. Functional interpretations: borderline idiosyncrasy in prepositional phrases and other expressions. Manuscript, University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Melvold, J. 1991. Factivity and definiteness. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 15, 97117.Google Scholar
Merchant, J. 2001. The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, J. 2008. An asymmetry in voice mismatches in VP-ellipsis and pseudogapping. Linguistic Inquiry 39, 169179.Google Scholar
Merchant, J. 2013. Voice and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 44, 77108.Google Scholar
Miller, P. 1991. Clitics and Constituents in Phrase Structure Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Milsark, G. 1974. Existential Sentences in English. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Nilsen, Ø. 2000. The Syntax of Circumstantial Adverbials. Oslo: Novus Press.Google Scholar
Oseki, Y. 2015. Eliminating Pair-Merge. In Steindl, U. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 303312. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, A. 2006. Small nominals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24, 433500.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. 1970. On the article in English. In Bierwisch, M. and Heidolph, K. (eds.), Progress in Linguistics, 233248. Mouton.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. 1983. Studies in Relational Grammar 1. Chicago, IL, and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. and Rosen, C. 1984. Studies in Relational Grammar 2. Chicago, IL, and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Picallo, M. C. 1991. Nominals and nominalization in Catalan. Probus 3, 279316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365424.Google Scholar
Postal, P. (with Johnson, D. E.) 1980. Arc Pair Grammar. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rackowski, A. 1998. Malagasy adverbs. In Paul, I. (ed.), The Structure of Malagasy II, 1133. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Rackowski, A. and Travis, L. 2000. V-initial languages: X or XP movement and adverbial placement. In Carnie, A. and Guilfoyle, E. (eds.), The Syntax of Verb Initial Languages, 117141. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Radford, A. 1997. Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ramchand, G. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ritter, E. 1991. Two functional categories in noun phrases: evidence from Modern Hebrew. In Rothstein, S. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 26, 3762. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. J. 1970. Dependency structures and transformation rules. Language 46, 259285.Google Scholar
Rudin, C. 1988. On multiple questions and multiple wh fronting. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 445501.Google Scholar
Saddy, D. 1991. Wh-scope mechanisms in Bahasa Indonesia. In Cheng, L. and Demirdash, H. (eds.), More Papers on wh-movement. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 15, 183218. Cambridge, MA: Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT.Google Scholar
Saddy, D. 1992. A versus A-bar movement and wh-fronting in Bahasa Indonesia. Manuscript, University of Queensland, Australia.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, U. 2004. The form of Semitic noun phrases. Lingua 114, 14651526.Google Scholar
Siewierska, A. 1988. Word Order Rules. London and New York: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. 1996. Icelandic finite verb agreement. Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57, 146.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. 1983. The possessor that ran away from home. Linguistic Review 3, 89102.Google Scholar
Takahashi, S. 2004. Pseudogapping and cyclic linearization. Proceedings of NELS 34, 571586.Google Scholar
Takahashi, S. 2011. Voice mismatch and syntactic identity. Linguistic Inquiry 42, 470490.Google Scholar
Tanaka, H. 2011. Syntactic identity and ellipsis. Linguistic Review 28, 79110.Google Scholar
Tasseva-Kurktchieva, M. 2001. Multiple wh-movement in Bulgarian: What is still not explained. Paper presented at Formal Descriptions of Slavic Languages (FDSL) 4. Potsdam, Germany.Google Scholar
Tesnière, L. 1959. Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris, France: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Toosarvandani, M. 2013. Gapping is low coordination (plus VP-ellipsis): a reply to Johnson. Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Travis, L. 2005. VP-internal structure in a VOS language. In Carnie, A., Harley, H., and Dooley, S. (eds.), Verb First: On the Syntax of Verb-initial Languages, 203224. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Valois, D. 1991. The Internal Syntax of DP. Doctoral dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 1995. Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vilkuna, M. 1998. Word order in European Uralic. In Siewierska, A. (ed.), Constituent Order in the Languages of Europe, 173233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wall, R. 1972. Introduction to Mathematical Linguistics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Whitman, J. 2005. Preverbal elements in Korean and Japanese. In Cinque, G. and Kayne, R. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax, 880902. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • John Bowers, Cornell University, New York
  • Book: Deriving Syntactic Relations
  • Online publication: 02 April 2018
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316156414.010
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • John Bowers, Cornell University, New York
  • Book: Deriving Syntactic Relations
  • Online publication: 02 April 2018
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316156414.010
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • John Bowers, Cornell University, New York
  • Book: Deriving Syntactic Relations
  • Online publication: 02 April 2018
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316156414.010
Available formats
×