Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-dk7s8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T17:56:54.565Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language universals and linguistic typology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Peter Coopmans
Peter Coopmans
Affiliation:
University of Utrecht
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.'

Information

Type
Review Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , September 1983 , pp. 455 - 473
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Aoun, Y. (1981). The formal nature of anaphoric relations. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Bach, E. (1962). The order of elements in a transformational grammar of German. Lg 38. 263–269.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, M. (1963). Grammatik des deutschen Verbs. Studia Grammatica 2.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1972). Remarks on nominalization. In Studies on semantics in generative grammar. The Hague: Mouton. 11–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1980a). Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1980b). On binding. LIn 11. 1–46.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. LIn monograph 6. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Lasnik, H. (1977). Filters and control. LIn 8. 425–504.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1981). On Keenan and Comrie's primary relativization constraint. LIn 12. 293–308.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1976). The syntax of causative constructions: cross-language similarities and divergences. In Shibatani, M. (ed.), The grammar of causative constructions. New York: Academic Press. 261–312.Google Scholar
Coopmans, P. (to appear). Surface word order typology and universal grammar.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. (1976). A transformational approach to English syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. (1981). Word order in generative grammar. Journal of Linguistic Research 1. 33–54.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. (1966). Some universals with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J. (ed.), Universals of language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 73–113.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. (1979). Implicational universals as predictors of word order change. Lg 55. 618–648.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. (1980). On implicational and distributional universals of word order. JL 16. 193–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. (1982). Cross-category harmony, X-bar and the predictions of markedness. JL 18. 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D. (eds.) (1981). Explanation in linguistics: the logical problem of language acquisition. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1977). X-syntax: a study of phrase structure. LIn monograph 2. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, O. (1982). Topics in Romance syntax. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1975). French syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1981a). ECP extensions. LIn 12. 93–133.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1981b). On certain differences between French and English. LIn 12. 349–371.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1982). Connectedness. Université de Paris VIII. ms.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. LIn 8. 63–99.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. & Comrie, B. (1979). Data on the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy. Lg 55. 33–351.Google Scholar
Keyser, S. (1975). The steely trimmers strike again. The New Review II. 14. 63–66.Google Scholar
Koster, J. (1975) Dutch as an SOV language. LAn 1. 111–136.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1981). The history of NP movement. In Baker, C. L. and McCarthy, J. (eds.), The logical problem of language acquisition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 86–119.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1982). The language lottery: toward a biology of grammars. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (1981). On the nature of grammatical relations. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (1982). Paths and categories. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouveret, A. & Vergnaud, J.-R. (1980). Specifying reference to the subject. French causatives and conditions on representations. LIn 11. 97–202.Google Scholar
Smith, N. (1981). Consistency, markedness and language change: on the notion ‘consistent language’. JL 17. 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taraldsen, T. (1980). On the NIC, vacuous application and the thai-trace filter. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, T. (1981). The theoretical implications of a class of marked extractions. In Belletti, A., Brandi, L. and Rizzi, L. (eds.), Theory of markedness in generative grammar. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore. 475–516.Google Scholar