Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T09:49:02.442Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2014

Cedric Boeckx
Cedric Boeckx
Affiliation:
ICREA and Universitat de Barcelona
Get access

Summary

A summary 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
Chapter
Information
Elementary Syntactic Structures
Prospects of a Feature-Free Syntax
 , pp. 174 - 198
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

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. (2003). Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. Ph.D. thesis, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Abels, K. and Bentzen, K. (2009). Are movement paths punctuated or uniform? Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 8, 19–40.Google Scholar
Abney, S. P. (1987). The noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Aboh, E. O. (2009). Clause structure and verb series. Linguistic Inquiry, 40(1), 1–33.Google Scholar
Acedo-Matellán, V. (2010). Argument structure and the syntax–morphology interface. A case study in Latin and other languages. Ph.D. thesis, Universitat de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Acquaviva, P. and Panagiotidis, P. (2012). Lexical decomposition meets conceptual atomism. MS, University College Dublin and University of Cyprus.Google Scholar
Adger, D. (2003). Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Adger, D. (2010). A minimalist theory of feature structure. In Features: Perspectives on a Key Notion in Linguistics (ed. Kibort, A. and Corbett, G.), pp. 185–218. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Adger, D. (2013a). Constructions and grammatical explanation: Comments on Goldberg. Mind & Language, 28, 466–478.Google Scholar
Adger, D. (2013b). The Syntax of Substance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Adger, D., Harbour, D., and Watkins, L. J. (2009). Mirrors and Macroparameters: Phrase Structure beyond Free Word Order. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Adger, D. and Svenonius, P. (2011). Features in minimalist syntax. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism (ed. Boeckx, C.), pp. 27–51. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Amritavalli, R. and Jayaseelan, K. A. (2003). The genesis of syntactic categories and parametric variation. In Generative Grammar in a Broader Perspective: Proceedings of the 4th GLOW in Asia, pp. 19–41.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. (2004). Doctor Dolittle’s Delusion: Animals and the Uniqueness of Human Language. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Arad, M. (2005). Roots and Patterns: Hebrew Morpho-Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Arbib, M. (n.d.). Neurolinguistics. MS, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Arregi, K. and Nevins, A. (2012). Morphotactics: Basque Auxiliaries and the Structure of Spellout. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Arregi, K. and Nevins, A. (2013). Contextual neutralization and the elsewhere principle. In Morphemes for Morris Halle (ed. Marantz, A. and Matushansky, O.), pp. 199–222. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Arsenijević, B. (2009). Clausal complementation as relativization. Lingua, 119(1), 39–50.Google Scholar
Arsenijević, B. (2013). The syntactic triangle: phases, categories and reference. MS, University of Niš.Google Scholar
Arsenijević, B. and Hinzen, W. (2010). Recursion as a human universal and as a primitive. Biolinguistics, 4, 165–173.Google Scholar
Arsenijević, B. and Hinzen, W. (2012). On the absence of x-within-x recursion in human grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 43(3), 423–440.Google Scholar
Bach, E. and Horn, G. M. (1976). Remarks on “conditions on transformations.” Linguistic Inquiry, 7(2), 265–299.Google Scholar
Bak, P. (1996). How Nature Works: The Science of Self-organized Criticality. New York: Copernicus.Google Scholar
Bak, P., Tang, C., andWiesenfeld, K. (1988). Self-organized criticality. Physical Review A, 38(1), 364–374.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (1988). Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (1996). The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (1999). On the interplay of the universal and the particular: Case study of Edo. In Proceedings of CLS 35: The Panels, pp. 265–289. Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (2001). The Atoms of Language. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (2003). Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (2005). The innate endowment for language: Underspecified or overspecified? In The Innate Mind (ed. Carruthers, P., Laurence, S., and Stich, S.), pp. 156–174. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (2008a). The macroparameter in a microparametric world. In The Limits of Variation (ed. Biberauer, T.), pp. 351–373. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (2008b). The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (2011). Principles and parameters set out from Europe. Presented at 50 Years of Linguistics at MIT.Google Scholar
Baker, M. and Collins, C. (2006). Linkers and the internal structure of vP. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 24(2), 307–354.Google Scholar
Baker, M. and Vinokurova, N. (2010). Two modalities of case assignment in Sakha. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 28, 593–642.Google Scholar
Balari, S., Boeckx, C., and Lorenzo, G. (2012). On the feasibility of biolinguistics: Koster’s word-based challenge and our ‘natural computation’ alternative. Biolinguistics, 6(2), 205–221.Google Scholar
Balari, S. and Lorenzo, G. (2013). Computational Phenotypes: Towards an Evolutionary Developmental Biolinguistics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ball, P. (2006). Critical Mass: How One Thing Leads to Another. New York: Farrar Straus & Giroux.Google Scholar
Barner, D., Wood, J., Hauser, M., and Carey, S. (2008). Evidence for a non-linguistic distinction between singular and plural sets in rhesus monkeys. Cognition, 107(2), 603–622.Google Scholar
Behar, D. M., Villems, R., Soodyall, H., Blue-Smith, J., Pereira, L., Metspalu, E., Scozzari, R., Makkan, H., Tzur, S., Comas, D. et al. (2008). The dawn of human matrilineal diversity. American Journal of Human Genetics, 82(5), 1130–1140.Google Scholar
Béjar, S. (2003). Phi-syntax: A theory of agreement. Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. (2004). Aspects of the low IP area. In The Structure of CP and IP (ed. Rizzi, L.), pp. 16–51. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Benítez-Burraco, A. (2009). Genes y lenguaje. Aspectos ontogenéticos, filogenéticos y cognitivos. Reverté, Barcelona.Google Scholar
Benítez-Burraco, A. and Longa, V. (2010). Evo-Devo – of course, but which one? Biolinguistics, 4, 308–323.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. C. (2011). All you need is merge: biology, computation and language from the bottom-up. In The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty (ed. Di Sciullo, A. M. and Boeckx, C.), pp. 461–491. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Berwick, R., Beckers, G., Okanoya, K., and Bolhuis, J. (2012). A bird’s eye view of human language evolution. Frontiers in Evolutionary Neuroscience, 4(5).Google Scholar
Berwick, R. C. and Chomsky, N. (2011). The biolinguistic program: The current state of its development. In The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty (ed. Di Sciullo, A. M. and Boeckx, C.), pp. 19–41. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In Cognition and the Development of Language (ed. Hayes, J. R.), pp. 279–362. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bhatt, R. and Walkow, M. (2013). Locating agreement in grammar: An argument from agreement in conjunctions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 31(4), 951–1013.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. (ed.) (2008). The Limits of Syntactic Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. (ed.) (n.d). Disharmonic word order, quirky morphology and the Afrikaans verb cluster. MS, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., and Roberts, I. G. (2007). Structure and linearization in disharmonic word orders. Paper presented at the 17th Colloquium of Generative Grammar, Girona.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Richards, M. (2006). True optionality: When the grammar doesn’t mind. In Minimalist Essays (ed. Boeckx, C.), pp. 35–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Blevins, J. (2004). Evolutionary Phonology: The Emergence of Sound Patterns. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D. (2008). Where’s Phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In Phi Theory: Phi-Features across Modules and Interfaces (ed. Harbour, D., Adger, D., and Béjar, S.), pp. 295–328. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D. and Thráinsson, H. (1998). Two heads aren’t always better than one. Syntax, 1, 37–71.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2003). Islands and Chains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2005). Generative grammar and modern cognitive science. Journal of Cognitive Science, 6, 45–54.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2006). Linguistic Minimalism: Origins, Concepts, Methods, and Aims. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2008a). Aspects of the Syntax of Agreement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2008b). Bare Syntax. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2008c). The person case constraint and patterns of exclusivity. In Agreement Restrictions (ed. D’Alessandro, R., Fischer, S., and Hrafnbjargarson, G.), pp. 87–101. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2008d). Understanding Minimalist Syntax: Lessons from Locality in Long-distance Dependencies. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2009a). Cartesian biolinguistics. SOLIFIC lecture, Sophia University, July 2009. MS, ICREA – Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2009b). Language in Cognition: Uncovering Mental Structures and the Rules behind Them. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2009c). The locus of asymmetry in UG. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 8, 41–53.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2009d). On long-distance agree. Iberia, 1, 1–32.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2009e). On the nature of merge. In Of Minds and Language: A Basque Encounter with Noam Chomsky (ed. Piattelli-Palmarini, M., Salaburu, P., and Uriagereka, J.), pp. 44–57. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2009f). Some notes on the syntax–thought interface. In Proceedings of the Sophia University Linguistic Society 24, pp. 92–103. Sophia University Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2010a). Linguistic minimalism. In Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis (ed. Heine, B. and Narrog, H.), pp. 485–505. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2010b). Syntactic order for free. Presented at the 10th European Conference on Complex Systems, Lisbon University Institute, workshop “Modelling the non-separability of a very complex world.”Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2011a). Approaching parameters from below. In The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty (ed. Sciullo, A.-M. D. and Boeckx, C.), pp. 205–221. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2011b). The emergence of the language faculty, from a biolinguistic point of view. In The Oxford Handbook of Language Evolution (ed. Tallerman, M. and Gibson, K.), pp. 492–501. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2011c). Some reflections on Darwin’s problem in the context of Cartesian biolinguistics. In The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty (ed. Di Sciullo, A.-M. and Boeckx, C.), pp. 42–64. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2012a). Phases beyond explanatory adequacy. In Phase Theory: Developing the Framework (ed. Gallego, A.), pp. 45–66. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2012b). Syntactic Islands. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2013a). Biolinguistics: Facts, fiction, forecast. Biolinguistics, 7, 316–328.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2013b). Biolinguistics: Forays into human cognitive biology. Journal of Anthropological Sciences, 91, 63–89.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2013c). Merge: Biolinguistic considerations. English Linguistics, 30(2), 463–483.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2014a). The roots of current biolinguistic thought: Revisiting the “Chomsky–Piaget debate” in the context of the revival of biolinguistics. Teorema, 33, 83–94.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2014b). What can an extended synthesis do for biolinguistics? On the needs and benefits of eco-evo-devo program. In The Evolution of Communication in Primates: A Multidisciplinary Approach (ed. Gontier, N. and Pina, M.), pp. 313–326. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2014c). What Principles & Parameters got wrong. In Linguistic Variation and the Minimalist Program (ed. Picallo, C.). Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (forthcoming). Considerations pertaining to the nature of logodiversity, or how to construct a parametric space without parameters. In Rethinking Parameters (ed. Eguren, Luis et al.). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. and Benítez-Burraco, A. (2014). The shape of the language-ready brain. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 282.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. and Grohmann, K. K. (2007). Putting phases in perspective. Syntax, 10, 204–222.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. and Hornstein, N. (2008). Superiority, reconstruction and islands. In Foundational Issues in Linguistics (ed. Otero, C., Freidin, R., and Zubizarreta, M.-L.), pp. 197–225. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C., Hornstein, N., and Nunes, J. (2010). Control as Movement. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. and Leivada, E. (2013). Entangled parametric hierarchies: Problems for an overspecified universal grammar. PLoS One, 8(9), e72357.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. and Leivada, E. (2014). On the particulars of universal grammar: Implications for acquisition. Language Sciences [in press], ICREA & Universitat de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. and Martín, T. (2013). El clitic datiu es mes que un clitic. Pages editors, Lleida.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. and Martínez-Álvarez, A. (2013). A multi-step algorithm for serial order: Converging evidence from linguistics and neuroscience. Presented at GLOW 36, Lund.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C., Martins, P. T., and Leivada, E. (in press). Biolinguistics. In The Cambridge Handbook of Syntactic Change (ed. Roberts, I. and Ledgeway, A.). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. and Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (2005). Language as a natural object; linguistics as a natural science. Linguistic Review, 22(2–4), 467–471.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. and Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (2007). Linguistics in cognitive science: state of the art amended. Linguistic Review, 24(4), 403–415.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. and Samuels, B. (2009). What emerges from merge in phonology. Presented at the 6th Old World Conference on Phonology, Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. and Uriagereka, J. (2007). Minimalism. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces (ed. Ramchand, G. and Reiss, C.), pp. 541–573. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borer, H. (1984). Parametric Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Borer, H. (2003). Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: Syntactic projections and the lexicon. In The Nature of Explanation (ed. Moore, J. and Polinsky, M.), pp. 31–67. Chicago: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Borer, H. (2005). Structuring Sense (2 vols.). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. (1994). D-structure, theta criterion, and movement into theta positions. Linguistic Analysis, 24, 247–286.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. (2002). A-movement and the EPP. Syntax, 5, 167–218.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. (2005). On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP. Studia Linguistica, 59(1), 1–45.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. (2007). On the locality and motivation of move and agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 38(4), 589–644.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. (2008a). The NP/DP analysis and Slovenian. In Novi Sad Generative Syntax Workshop, pp. 53–73. University of Novi Sad.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. (2008b). What will you have, DP or NP? In Proceedings of NELS 37. GLSA.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. (2010). NPs and clauses. MS, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. (2011). On valued uninterpretable features. In Proceedings of NELS 39, pp. 109–120. GLSA Publications: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. and Lasnik, H. (2007). Minimalist Syntax: The Essential Readings. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brame, M.K. (1976). Conjectures and Refutations in Syntax and Semantics. London: North Holland.Google Scholar
Briscoe, E. and Feldman, J. (2006). Conceptual complexity and the bias–variance tradeoff. MS, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Brody, M. (2000). Mirror theory: Syntactic representation in perfect syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 29, 367–398.Google Scholar
Brody, M. (2003). Towards an Elegant Syntax. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Browning, M. (1987). Null operator constructions. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Bruening, B. (2008). Selectional asymmetries between CP and DP suggest that the DP hypothesis is wrong. MS, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Bufill, E. and Carbonell, E. (2004). Are symbolic behaviour and neuroplasticity an example of gene–culture coevolution? Revista de neurologia, 39(1), 48–55.Google Scholar
Butler, J. (2004). Phase structure, phrase structure, and quantification. Ph.D. thesis, University of York.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bye, P. and Svenonius, P. (2012). Non-concatenative morphology as epiphenomenon. In The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence (ed. Trommer, J.), pp. 427–495. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Caha, P. (2009). The nanosyntax of case. Ph.D. thesis, Universitetet i Troms𝜙.Google Scholar
Caponigro, I. and Polinsky, M. (2011). Relative embeddings: A Circassian puzzle for the syntax/semantics interface. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29, 71–122.Google Scholar
Caponigro, I. and Polinsky, M. (forthcoming). Almost everything is relative in the Caucasus. In Proceedings of SALT 18.Google Scholar
Carnie, A. (2008). Constituent Structure. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carruthers, P. (2006). The Architecture of the Mind. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carstens, V. (2005). Agree and EPP in Bantu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 23(2), 219–279.Google Scholar
Castañeda, H.-N. (1967). Actions, imperatives, and obligations. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 68, pp. 25–48.Google Scholar
Cheney, D. L. and Seyfarth, R. M. (1990). How Monkeys See the World. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cheney, D. L. and Seyfarth, R. M. (2007). Baboon Metaphysics: The Evolution of a Social Mind. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cheng, L. L. S. and Sybesma, R. (1999). Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry, 30(4), 509–542.Google Scholar
Cheng, L. L. S. and Sybesma, R. (2005). Classifiers in four varieties of Chinese. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax (ed. Cinque, G. and Kayne, R.), pp. 259–292. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. (1998). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 339–405.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1955). The logical structure of linguistic theory. MS, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. [published in part in 1975. New York: Plenum]Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1966). Cartesian Linguistics. New York: Harper & Row. [third edition, with introduction by J. McGilvray, 2009, Cambridge University Press].Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar (ed. Jacobs, R. and Rosenbaum, P.), pp. 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1972). Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle (ed. Anderson, S. and Kiparsky, P.), pp. 232–286. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1977a). Essays on Form and Interpretation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1977b). On wh-movement. In Formal Syntax (ed. Culicover, P., Wasow, T., and Akmajian, A.), pp. 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and Representations. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and Problems of Knowledge: The Managua Lectures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1993). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The View from Building 20 (ed. Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J.), pp. 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1994). Bare phrase structure. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 5. Reprinted in G. Webelhuth, ed. (1995), Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program, 383–439. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2000a). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik (ed. Martin, R., Michaels, D., and Uriagereka, J.), pp. 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2000b). New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language (ed. Kenstowicz, M.), pp. 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2004). Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and Beyond (ed. Belletti, A.), pp. 104–131. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in the language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 1–22.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2007). Approaching UG from below. In Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Semantics (ed. Sauerland, U. and Gärtner, H.-M.), pp. 1–30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2008). On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistics (ed. Otero, C., Freidin, R., and Zubizarreta, M.-L.), pp. 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2012a). Foreword. In Phases: Developing the Framework (ed. Gallego, Á.), pp. 1–7. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2012b). The Science of Language: Interviews with James McGilvray. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2013). Problems of projection. Lingua, 130, 33–49.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. and Halle, M. (1968). The Sound Pattern of English. Harper & Row, New York. Reprinted in 1991. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., Halle, M., and Lukoff, F. (1956). On accent and juncture in English. In For Roman Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, pp. 65–80. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. and Lasnik, H. (1977). Filters and Control. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(3), 425–504.Google Scholar
Chung, S. (2012). On reaching agreement late. In Proceedings of CLS 48.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (2002). “We had to meet in cafés to read Syntactic Structures.” Glot International, 6, 190–193.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (2013). Typological Studies. Word Order and Relative Clauses. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. and Rizzi, L. (2010). The cartography of syntactic structures. In Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis (ed. Heine, B. and Narrog, H.), pp. 51–65. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, C. (2002). Eliminating labels. In Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program (ed. Epstein, S. D. and Seely, T. D.), pp. 42–64. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Collins, C. (2005). A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax, 8(2), 81–120.Google Scholar
Collins, C. and Ura, H. (2001). Eliminating phrase structure. MS, Cornell University and Kwansei Gakuin University.Google Scholar
Cooke, J. and Zeeman, E. C. (1976). A clock and wavefront model for control of the number of repeated structures during animal morphogenesis. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 58(2), 455–476.Google Scholar
Cottingham, J. (1978). ‘A brute to the brutes?’: Descartes’ treatment of animals. Philosophy, 53(206), 551–559.Google Scholar
Cuervo, M. C. (2003). Datives at large. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Culbertson, J. (2010). Learning biases, regularization, and the emergence of typological universals in syntax. Ph.D. thesis, Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. (1999). Syntactic Nuts: Hard Cases, Syntactic Theory, and Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. and Jackendoff, R. (2005). Simpler Syntax. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1967). The logical form of action sentences. In Essays on Actions and Events (ed. Davidson, D.), pp. 105–148. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1996). The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion. London: Black Swan.Google Scholar
De Belder, M. and van Craenenbroeck, J. (2011). How to merge a root. MS, Brussels and Utrecht.Google Scholar
De Belder, M. and van Craenenbroeck, J. (2013). On vocabulary insertion. MS, HU Brussels.Google Scholar
De Vries, M. (2009). On multidominance and linearization. Biolinguistics, 3(4), 344–403.Google Scholar
Deacon, T.W. (2006). Emergence: The hole at the wheel’s hub. In The Re-emergence of Emergence: The Emergentist Hypothesis from Science to Religion (ed. Clayton, P. and Davies, P.), pp. 111–150. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Deacon, T.W. (2010). A role for relaxed selection in the evolution of the language capacity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(Supplement 2), 9000–9006.Google Scholar
Dediu, D. and Levinson, S. C. (2013). On the antiquity of language: The reinterpretation of neandertal linguistic capacities and its consequences. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 397.Google Scholar
Dehaene, S. (1997). The Number Sense. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Demirdache, H. and Uribe-Etxebarria, M. (2000). The primitives of temporal relations. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik (ed. Martin, R., Michaels, D., and Uriagereka, J.), pp. 157–186. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, A.M. and Boeckx, C. (2011). Contours of the biolinguistic research agenda. In The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty (ed. Sciullo, A.-M. D. and Boeckx, C.), pp. 1–16. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Diamond, J. M. (1992). The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Diercks, M. (2011). Parameterizing case: Evidence from Bantu. MS, Pomona College.Google Scholar
Dillon, B. and Idsardi, W. (2009). Investigating statistical approaches to building a phonology. MS, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. (1989). On the semantic content of the notion of “thematic role.” In Properties, Types and Meaning (ed. Chierchia, G., Partee, B. H., and Turner, R.), pp. 69–129. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Drummond, A. (2011). Binding phenomena within a reductionist theory of grammatical dependencies. Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Duguine, M. (2013). Null arguments and linguistic variation: A minimalist analysis of pro-drop. Ph.D. thesis, Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea and Université de Nantes.Google Scholar
Dupuy, J.-P. (2009). On the Origins of Cognitive Science: The Mechanization of the Mind (2nd edn). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Embick, D. (2010). Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Embick, D. and Noyer, R. (2007). Distributed morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces (ed. Ramchand, G. and Reiss, C.), pp. 289–324. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. E. (1985). A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. E. (2008). Valuing v-features and n-features: What adjuncts tell us about case, agreement, and syntax in general. In Merging Features: Computation, Interpretation, and Acquisition (ed. Brucart, J., Gavarró, A., and Solà, J.), pp. 194–214. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Endress, A. D., Cahill, D., Block, S., Watumull, J., and Hauser, M. D. (2009). Evidence of an evolutionary precursor to human language affixation in a non-human primate. Biology Letters, 5(6), 749–751.Google Scholar
Endress, A. D., Carden, S., Versace, E., and Hauser, M. D. (2010). The apes’ edge: Positional learning in chimpanzees and humans. Animal Cognition, 13(3), 483–495.Google Scholar
Endress, A. D., Dehaene-Lambertz, G., and Mehler, J. (2007). Perceptual constraints and the learnability of simple grammars. Cognition, 105(3), 577–614.Google Scholar
Endress, A. D. and Mehler, J. (2009). Primitive computations in speech processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(11), 2187–2209.Google Scholar
Endress, A. D., Nespor, M., and Mehler, J. (2009). Perceptual and memory constraints on language acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(8), 348–353.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. D. (2003 [2007]). On i(nternalist)–functional explanation in minimalism. Linguistic Analysis, 33(1–2), 20–53.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. D., Kitahara, H., and Seely, T. D. (2012). Structure Building that can’t be. In Ways of Structure Building (ed. Uribe-Etxebarria, M. and Valmala, V.), pp. 253–270. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. D. and Seely, T. D. (2002). Rule applications as cycles in a level-free syntax. In Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program (ed. Epstein, S. D. and Seely, T. D.), pp. 65–89. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. D. and Seely, T. D. (2006). Derivations in Minimalism. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Etxepare, R. and Haddican, B. (2013). Repairing final-over-final constraint violations: Evidence from Basque verb clusters. Paper presented at GLOW 36.Google Scholar
Evans, N. and Levinson, S. C. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(5), 429–492.Google Scholar
Fasanella-Seligrat, A. (2011). Els problemes de Plató, de Darwin i de Greenberg. Els Marges, 94, 18–36.Google Scholar
Fasanella-Seligrat, A. and Fortuny, J. (2011). Deriving linguistic variation from learnability conditions in a parametric approach to UG. Presented at the workshop Formal Grammar and Syntactic Variation, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
Feldman, J. et al. (2000). Minimization of Boolean complexity in human concept learning. Nature, 407(6804), 630–632.Google Scholar
Felix, S. (2010). Me and Chomsky. Remarks from someone who quit. In Language and Logos (ed. Hanneforth, T. and Fanselow, G.), pp. 64–71. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Ferrer i Cancho, R. and Forns, N. (2009). The self-organization of genomes. Complexity, 15, 34–36.Google Scholar
Fitch, W. T. (2009). Prolegomena to a future science of biolinguistics. Biolinguistics, 3(4), 283–320.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1998). In Critical Condition: Polemical Essays on Cognitive Science and the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. (1998). Unambiguous triggers. Linguistic Inquiry, 29(1), 1–36.Google Scholar
Fortuny, J. (2008). The Emergence of Order in Syntax. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Fox, D. (2000). Economy and Semantic Interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fox, D. (2002). Antecedent-contained deletion and the copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 33(1), 63–96.Google Scholar
Frampton, J. and Gutmann, S. (2002). Crash-proof syntax. In Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program (ed. Epstein, S. D. and Seely, T. D.), pp. 90–105. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Freidin, R. (1999). Cyclicity andminimalism. In Working Minimalism (ed. Epstein, S. D. and Hornstein, N.), pp. 95–126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fujita, K. (2009). A prospect for evolutionary adequacy: Merge and the evolution and development of human language. Biolinguistics, 3(2), 128–153.Google Scholar
Fukui, N. (2006). Theoretical Comparative Syntax. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fukui, N. and Speas, M. (1986). Specifiers and projections. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 8, 128–172.Google Scholar
Fukui, N. and Zushi, M. (2008). On certain differences between noun phrases and clauses. In Essays on Nominal Determination (ed. Müller, H. H. and Klinge, A.), pp. 265–286. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gallego, Á. (2009). A note on C. MS, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Gallego, Á. (2011a). Lexical items and feature bundling. Presented at the workshop on Formal Grammar and Syntactic Variation, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
Gallego, Á. (2011b). Phase Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gallego, Á. (ed.) (2012). Phases: Developing the Framework. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gallego, Á. and Bosque, I. (2011). A subextraction puzzle and its consequences for cyclicity. MS, UCM & UAB.Google Scholar
Georgi, D. and Müller, G. (2010). Noun phrase structure by reprojection. Syntax, 13(1–36).Google Scholar
Gervain, J. and Mehler, J. (2010). Speech perception and language acquisition in the first year of life. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 191–218.Google Scholar
Gierer, A. and Meinhardt, H. (1972). A theory of biological pattern formation. Biological Cybernetics, 12(1), 30–39.Google Scholar
Giorgi, A. and Pianesi, F. (1997). Tense and Aspect: From Semantics to Morphosyntax. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1997). Darwinian fundamentalism. New York Review of Books, 44, 34–37.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (1991). Extended projection. MS, Brandeis University. [reprinted in 2005, In Words and Structure. CSLI Lecture Notes Number 151. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications]Google Scholar
Grohmann, K. K. (2003). Prolific Domains. On the Anti-Locality of Movement Dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grohmann, K. K. (2011). Anti-locality. In Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism (ed. Boeckx, C.), pp. 260–290. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Guardiano, C. and Longobardi, G. (2005). Parametric comparison and language taxonomy. In Grammaticalization and Parametric Variation (ed. Batllori, M., Hernanz, M.-L., Picallo, C., and Roca, F.), pp. 149–174. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1994). Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (1993). On argument structure and the lexical expression of grammatical relations. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger (ed. Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J.), pp. 53–110. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (2002). Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, M. and Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from Building 20 (ed. Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J.), pp. 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, M. and Marantz, A. (1994). Some key features of distributed morphology. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 21, 275–288.Google Scholar
Harbour, D. (2006). The elimination of geometry. MS, Queen Mary University of London.Google Scholar
Harbour, D. (2009). The semantics, and generality, of features: Or, how not to construct a theory of cognitive evolution. MS, Queen Mary University of London.Google Scholar
Harley, H. (2013). External arguments and the mirror principle: On the independence of voice and 𝜐. Lingua, 125, 34–57.Google Scholar
Harley, H. (forthcoming). On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics.Google Scholar
Harley, H. and Noyer, R. (1999). Distributed morphology. Glot International, 4(4), 3–9.Google Scholar
Harley, H. and Ritter, E. (2002a). Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language, 482–526.Google Scholar
Harley, H. and Ritter, E. (2002b). Structuring the bundle: A universal morphosyntactic feature geometry. In Pronouns – Grammar and Representation (ed. Weise, H. and Simon, H.), pp. 23–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2008). Parametric versus functional explanations of syntactic universals. In The Limits of Syntactic Variation (ed. Biberauer, T.), pp. 75–107. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2010). Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language, 86(3), 663–687.Google Scholar
Hauser, M. D. (2001). Wild Minds: What Animals Really Think. New York: Owl Books.Google Scholar
Hauser, M. D. (2009). The possibility of impossible cultures. Nature, 460(7252), 190–196.Google Scholar
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., and Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298, 1569–1579.Google Scholar
Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. (2007). The Genesis of Grammar: A Reconstruction. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B. and Narrog, H. (eds.) (2010). Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Herburger, E. (2000). What Counts: Focus and Quantification. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hinzen, W. (2006). Mind Design and Minimal Syntax. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hinzen, W. (2007). An Essay on Naming and Truth. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hinzen, W. (2008). Prospects for an explanatory theory of semantics. Biolinguistics, 2(4), 348–363.Google Scholar
Hinzen, W. (2011a). Emergence of a systemic semantics through minimal and underspecified codes. In The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty (ed. Di Sciullo, A. M. and Boeckx, C.), pp. 417–439. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hinzen, W. (2011b). Language and thought. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism (ed. Boeckx, C.), pp. 499–522. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hinzen, W. (2012). Phases and semantics. In Phases: Developing the Framework (ed. Gallego, Á.), pp. 309–342. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hinzen, W. (2013). Narrow syntax and the language of thought. Philosophical Psychology, 26(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Hinzen, W. and Poeppel, D. (2011). Semantics between cognitive neuroscience and linguistic theory: Guest editors’ introduction. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(9), 1297–1316.Google Scholar
Hinzen, W. and Reichard, U. (2011). The grammaticalization of thought. MS, University of Durham.Google Scholar
Hinzen, W. and Sheehan, M. (2013). The Philosophy of Universal Grammar. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hiramatsu, K. (2000). Accessing linguistic competence: Evidence from children’s and adults’ acceptability judgments. Ph.D. thesis, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Hodges, A. (1983). The Enigma. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. (2010). Parameters in minimalist theory: The case of Scandinavian. Theoretical Linguistics, 36(1), 1–48.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. and Platzack, C. (1995). The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. (2001). Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. (2009). A Theory of Syntax. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N., Nunes, J., and Grohmann, K. K. (2006). Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. and Pietroski, P.M. (2009). Basic operations:Minimal syntax–semantics. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 8, 113–139.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. and Uriagereka, J. (2002). Reprojections. In Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program (ed. Epstein, S. D. and Seely, T. D.), pp. 106–132. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. (1982). Logical Relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. (2005). Analyticity. Class lectures, MIT/Harvard LSA Summer Institute.Google Scholar
Hurford, J. R. (2007). The Origins of Meaning. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Idsardi, W. and Raimy, E. (2013). Three types of Linearization and the temporal aspects of speech. In Principles of linearization (ed. Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I.), pp. 31–56. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Irurtzun, A. (2007). The grammar of focus at the interfaces. Ph.D. thesis, Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of Language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2005). Alternative minimalist visions of language. In Proceedings from the 41st Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 2, pp. 189–226.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2010). Meaning and the Lexicon: The Parallel Architecture 1975–2010. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2011). What is the human language faculty? Two views. Language, 87(3), 586–624.Google Scholar
Jenks, P. (2010). Evidence for the syntactic diversity of numeral classifiers. MS, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Jenks, P. (2012). Definite spans and blocking in classifier languages. MS, UC Berkeley.Google Scholar
Jeong, Y. (2007). Applicatives: Structure and Interpretation from a Minimalist Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jeong, Y. (2011). Re-examining the “NP/DP” parameter in light of the diversity of East-Asian classifiers. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics (ed. Otsu, Y.), Tokyo, pp. 113–131.Google Scholar
Jiang, L. J. (2012). Nominal arguments and language variation. Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. (2010). A remerge theory of movement. MS, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. (2012). Towards deriving differences in how wh-movement and QR are pronounced. Lingua, 122(6), 529–553.Google Scholar
Jurka, J. (2010). The importance of being a complement: CED effects revisited. Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Kagawa, H., Yamada, H., Lin, R.-S., Mizuta, T., Hasegawa, T., and Okanoya, K. (2012). Ecological correlates of song complexity in white-rumped Munias: The implication of relaxation of selection as a cause for signal variation in birdsong. Interaction Studies, 13(2), 263–284.Google Scholar
Kato, Takaomi (2007). Symmetries in coordination. Ph.D. dissertation. Harvard University.Google Scholar
Katz, J. and Pesetsky, D. (2009). The identity thesis for language and music. MS, MIT.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (1984). Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (1997). The English complementizer of. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 1(1), 43–54.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (2005). Movement and Silence. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (2010). Why isn’t this a complementizer? In Principles and Contrasts (ed. Kayne, R.), pp. 190–227. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (2011). Antisymmetry and the lexicon. In The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty (ed. Sciullo, A.-M. di and Boeckx, C.), pp. 329–353. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kemp, C., Perfors, A., and Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Learning overhypotheses with hierarchical Bayesian models. Developmental Science, 10(3), 307–321.Google Scholar
Kibort, A. and Corbett, G. (ed.) (2010). Features. Perspectives on a Key Notion in Linguistics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kinsella, A. R. (2009). Language Evolution and Syntactic Theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koopman, H. (2005). On the parallelism of DPs and clauses: Evidence from Kisongo Maasai. In Verb First: On the Syntax of Verb-Initial Languages (ed. Carnie, A., Dooley, S., and Harley, H.), pp. 281–301. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Koster, J. (1987). Domains and Dynasties: The Radical Autonomy of Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Koster, J. (2009). Ceaseless, unpredictable creativity: Language as technology. Biolinguistics, 3(1), 61–92.Google Scholar
Koster, J. (2010). Language and tools. MS, Universiteit Groningen.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (1992). Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Lexical Matters (ed. Sag, I. and Szabolcsi, A.), pp. 29–53. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kural, M. (2005). Tree traversal and word order. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(3), 367–387.Google Scholar
Lahne, A. (2008). Where there is fire there is smoke. Local modelling of successive cyclic movement. Ph.D. thesis, Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1970). Irregularity in Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Landau, I. (2013). Agreement at PF: An argument from partial control. MS, Ben Gurion University.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Nouns and verbs. Language, 63, 53–94.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and Conceptualization. Volume XIV. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Larson, R. K. (1987). “Missing prepositions” and the analysis of English free relative clauses. Linguistic Inquiry, 18(2), 239–266.Google Scholar
Larson, R. K. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19(3), 335–391.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. (1999). Minimalist Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. (2000). Syntactic Structures Revisited. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. (2001). When can you save a structure by destroying it? In Proceedings of NELS 31, pp. 301–320. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. (2002). “All I ever wanted to be was a teacher!” An interview conducted by L. Cheng and R. Sybesma. Glot International, 6(9–10), 320–328.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. (2005). Review of Jason Merchant, The Syntax of Silence. Language, 81, 259–265.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. (2006). Conceptions of the cycle. In Wh-movement: Moving On (ed. Cheng, L. and Corver, N.), pp. 197–216. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. and Saito, M. (1992). Move 𝛼. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Legate, J. A. (2002). Walpiri: theoretical implications. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Legate, J. A. (2011). Under-inheritance. MS, University of Pennsylvania. [presented at NELS42]Google Scholar
Legate, J. A. and Yang, C. (2012). Assessing child and adult grammar. In Rich Languages from Poor Inputs (ed. Berwick, R. and Piattelli-Palmarini, M.), pp. 168–182. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leiber, J. (2002). Philosophy, engineering, biology, and history: A vindication of Turing’s views about the distinction between the cognitive and physical sciences. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 14(1), 29–37.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, E. H. (1963). The relationship of language to the formation of concepts. In Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science (Proceedings of the Boston Colloquium for the Philosophy of Science 1961/1962) (ed. Wartofsky, M.), pp. 48–54. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, E. H. (1964). A biological perspective of language. In New Directions in the Study of Language (ed. Lenneberg, E.), pp. 65–88. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Leu, T. (2008). The internal syntax of determiners. Ph.D. thesis, NYU.Google Scholar
Leu, T. (2012). The indefinite article – indefinite? – indefitive? – article? University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 18(1), 19.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. (2000). The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, and Environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lohndal, T. (2012). Without specifiers: Phrase structure and events. Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Lohndal, T. and Uriagereka, J. (2010). The logic of parametric theory. Theoretical Linguistics, 36, 69–76.Google Scholar
Longa, V. M. and Lorenzo, G. (2008). What about a (really) minimalist theory of language acquisition? Linguistics, 46(3), 541–570.Google Scholar
Longa, V. M. and Lorenzo, G. (2012). Theoretical linguistics meets development: Explaining FL from an epigeniticist point of view. In Language from a Biological Point of View: Current Issues in Biolinguistics (ed. Boeckx, C., Horno, M., and Mendívil Giró, J.), pp. 52–84. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Longa, V. M., Lorenzo, G., and Rigau, G. (1996). Expressing modality by recycling clitics. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics, 5(1), 67–79.Google Scholar
Longa, V. M., Lorenzo, G., and Rigau, G. (1998). Subject clitics and clitic recycling: Locative sentences in some Iberian Romance languages. Journal of Linguistics, 34, 125–164.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. (1994). Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry, 25(4), 609–665.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. (2004). Methods in parametric linguistics and cognitive history. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 3, 101–138.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. (2005a). A minimalist program for parametric linguistics? In Organizing Grammar (ed. Broekhuis, H., Corver, N., Huybregts, R., Kleinhenz, U., and Koster, J.), pp. 407–414. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. (2005b). Toward a unified grammar of reference. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 24(1), 5–44.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. (2006). Reference to individuals, person, and the variety of mapping parameters. In Essays on Nominal Determination (ed. Müller, H. H. and Klinge, A.), pp. 189–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. and Guardiano, C. (2011). The biolinguistic program and historical reconstruction. In The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty (ed. Di Sciullo, A. M. and Boeckx, C.), pp. 266–304. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lorenz, K. (1959). Psychologie und Stammesgeschichte. In Evolution der Organismen (ed. Heberer, G.), pp. 131–170. Stuttgart: Fischer.Google Scholar
Lorenzo, G. (2013). Beyond developmental compatibility: A note on generative linguistics and the developmentalist challenge. Teorema, 32, 29–44.Google Scholar
Lorenzo, G. and Longa, V. M. (2003). Minimizing the genes for grammar: Theminimalist program as a biological framework for the study of language. Lingua, 113(7), 643–657.Google Scholar
Lorenzo, G. and Longa, V. M. (Lorenzo, G. and Longa, V. M. 2009). Beyond generative geneticism: Rethinking language acquisition from a developmentalist point of view. Lingua, 119(9), 1300–1315.Google Scholar
McBrearty, S. and Brooks, A. S. (2000). The revolution that wasn’t: A new interpretation of the origin of modern human behavior. Journal of Human Evolution, 39(5), 453–563.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. R. and Savoia, L. M. (2011). Grammatical Categories: Variation in Romance Languages. Volume 128. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (1984). On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (1991). Case and licensing. In Proceedings of ESCOL’91, pp. 234–253.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (1995). The minimalist program. In Government and Binding and the Minimalist Program (ed. Webelhuth, G.), pp. 349–382. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (1996). Cat as a phrasal idiom. MS, MIT.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(2), 201–225.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (2000). Words. Handout, MIT.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (2005). Generative linguistics within the cognitive neuroscience of language. Linguistic Review, 22(2–4), 429–446.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (2008). Words and phases. In Phases in the Theory of Grammar (ed. Choe, S.-H.), pp. 191–222. Seoul: Dong In.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (2013). Verbal argument structure: Events and participants. Lingua, 130, 152–168.Google Scholar
Marcus, G. (2006). Cognitive architecture and descent with modification. Cognition, 101(2), 443–465.Google Scholar
Martín, F. J. (2012). Deconstructing Catalan object clitics. Ph.D. thesis, New York University.Google Scholar
Marušič, F. (2005). On non-simultaneous phases. Ph.D. thesis, Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
Marvin, T. (2002). Topics in the stress and syntax of words. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Masullo, P. J. (2008). The syntax–lexical semantics interface: Prepositionalizing motion verbs in Spanish. MS, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Mateu, J. (2005). Impossible primitives. In The Compositionality of Meaning and Content (ed. Werning, M., Machery, E., and Schurz, G.), pp. 213–229. Heusenstamm: Ontos Verlag.Google Scholar
Mathieu, E. (2011). Wh-in-situ and external parameters. Presented at the workshop Formal Grammar and Syntactic Variation, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
Mathieu, E. and Barrie, M. (2011). Macroparameters don’t exist: The case of polysynthesis and noun incorporation. Presented at the workshop Formal Grammar and Syntactic Variation, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1959). Darwin and the evolutionary theory in biology. In Evolution and Anthropology: A Centennial Appraisal (ed. Meggers, J.), pp. 1–10. The Anthropological Society of Washington, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
Medina, M. L. (2010). Two “evo-devos.” Biological Theory, 5, 7–11.Google Scholar
Mellars, P., Boyle, K., Bar-Yosef, O., and Stringer, C. (eds.) (2007). Rethinking the Human Revolution. Cambridge, UK: McDonald Institute Monographs.Google Scholar
Merchant, J. (2001). The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and Identity in Ellipsis. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, G. and Chomsky, N. (1963). Finitary models of language users. In Handbook of Mathematical Psychology (ed. Luce, R. D., Bush, R., and Galanter, E.), pp. 419–491. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Mitrović, M. (2013). The composition of logical constants. MS, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S. (2010). Why Agree; Why Move. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Moro, A. (2000). Dynamic Antisymmetry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Müller, G. (2010). On deriving CED effects from the PIC. Linguistic Inquiry, 41, 35–82.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. and van Riemsdijk, H. (ed.) (1986). Features and Projections. Volume XXV. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Narita, H. (2010a). Phasing in full interpretation. Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Narita, H. (2010b). The tension between explanatory and biological adequacy. A review of Theoretical Comparative Syntax: Studies in Macroparameters, Naoki Fukui, Routledge, London and New York (2006). Lingua, 120, 1313–1323.Google Scholar
Newell, H. (2008). Aspects of the morphology and phonology of phases. Ph.D. thesis, McGill University.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. (2004). Against a parameter-setting approach to language variation. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 4, 181–234.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. (2005). Possible and Probable Languages: A Generative Perspective on Linguistic Typology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nicolis, M. (2008). The null subject parameter and correlating properties: The case of Creole languages. In The Limits of Variation (ed. Biberauer, T.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Niyogi, P. and Berwick, R. C. (1996). A language learning model for finite parameter spaces. Cognition, 61(1), 161–193.Google Scholar
Nunes, J. (2004). Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Obata, M. (2010). Root, successive-cyclic and feature-splitting internal merge: implications for feature-inheritance and transfer. Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Ochi, M. (2010). Classifiers and nominal structure: A parametric approach and its consequences. MS, Osaka University.Google Scholar
Okanoya, K. (2012). Behavioural factors governing song complexity in Bengalese Finches. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 25, 44–59.Google Scholar
Osborne, T., Putnam, M., and Gross, T. M. (2011). Bare phrase structure, label-less trees, and specifier-less syntax: Is minimalism becoming a dependency grammar? Linguistic Review, 28(3), 315–364.Google Scholar
Otero, C. (1976). The dictionary in a generative grammar. Presented at the 91st Annual Convention of the MLA, New York.Google Scholar
Otero, C. (1983). Towards a model of paradigmatic grammar. Quaderni di Semantica, 4, 134–144.Google Scholar
Otero, C. (1996). Head movement, cliticization, precompilation, and word insertion (comments on Uriagereka’s paper). In Current Issues in Comparative Grammar (ed. Freidin, R.), pp. 296–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Ott, D. (2008). Notes on noun ph(r)ases. MS, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Ott, D. (2009a). The conceptual necessity of phases: Some remarks on the minimalist enterprise. In Explorations of Phase Theory: Interpretation at the Interfaces (ed. Grohmann, K.), pp. 253–275. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ott, D. (2009b). Stylistic Fronting as Remnant Movement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 83, 141–178.Google Scholar
Ott, D. (2009c). The evolution of I-Language: Lexicalization as the key evolutionary novelty. Biolinguistics, 3(2), 255–269.Google Scholar
Ott, D. (2011). A note on free relative clauses in the theory of phases. Linguistic Inquiry, 42, 183–192.Google Scholar
Ouali, H. (2007). Unifying agreement relations: A minimalist analysis of Berber. Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Ouhalla, J. (1991). Functional Categories and Parametric Variation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pantcheva, M. (2011). Decomposing path: The nanosyntax of directional expressions. Ph.D. thesis, Universitetet i Troms𝜙.Google Scholar
Parsons, T. (1990). Events in the Semantics of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pearl, L. S. (2007). Necessary bias in natural language learning. Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. and Torrego, E. (2001). T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language (ed. Kenstowicz, M.), pp. 355–426. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. and Torrego, E. (2007). The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation (ed. Karimi, S., Samiian, V., and Wilkins, W.), pp. 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (2006). The real-time status of island phenomena. Language, 82(4), 795–823.Google Scholar
Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (1989). Evolution, selection and cognition: from ‘learning’ to parameter setting in biology and in the study of language. Cognition, 31, 1–44.Google Scholar
Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (2010). What is language that it may have evolved, and what is evolution that it may apply to language? In The Evolution of Human Language: Biolinguistic Perspectives (ed. Larson, R., Déprez, H., and Yamakido, V.), pp. 148–162. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Piattelli-Palmarini, M. and Uriagereka, J. (2005). The evolution of the narrow language faculty: The skeptical view and a reasonable conjecture. Lingue e Linguaggio, 4, 27–79.Google Scholar
Piattelli-Palmarini, M. and Uriagereka, J. (2011). FoxP2: A geneticist’s dream; a linguist’s nightmare. In The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty (ed. Sciullo, A.-M. di and Boeckx, C.), pp. 100–125. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Picallo, M. C. (2006). On gender and number. MS, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Picallo, M. C. (2008). On gender and number in Romance. Lingue e Linguaggio, 1, 44–66.Google Scholar
Piera, C. (1985). On the representation of higher order complex words. In Selected Papers from XIII Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Chapel Hill, NC, 24–26 March 1983, pp. 287–313. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pietroski, P. M. (2003a). Quantification and second-order monadicity. Philosophical Perspectives, 17, 259–298.Google Scholar
Pietroski, P. M. (2003b). Small verbs, complex events: Analyticity without synonymy. In Chomsky and His Critics (ed. Hornstein, N. and Antony, L.), pp. 179–214. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
Pietroski, P. M. (2005). Events and Semantic Architecture. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pietroski, P. M. (2007). Systematicity via monadicity. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 7, 343–374.Google Scholar
Pietroski, P. M. (2008). Minimalist meaning, internalist interpretation. Biolinguistics, 2(4), 317–341.Google Scholar
Pietroski, P. M. (2010). Concepts, meanings and truth: First nature, second nature and hard work. Mind & Language, 25(3), 247–278.Google Scholar
Pietroski, P. M. (2011). Minimal semantic instructions. In Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism (ed. Boeckx, C.), pp. 472–498. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pietroski, P. M. (2012). Language and conceptual reanalysis. In Towards a Biolinguistic Understanding of Grammar: Essays on Interfaces (ed. Di Sciullo, A.). Ansermenn: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pietroski, P. M. (forthcoming). Conjoining Meanings: Semantics without Truth Values. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. and Bloom, P. (1990). Natural selection and natural language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13, 707–784.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. and Jackendoff, R. (2005). The faculty of language: What’s special about it? Cognition, 95(2), 201–236.Google Scholar
Poeppel, D. (2005). The interdisciplinary study of language and its challenges. Technical report, Jahrbuch des Wissenschaftskollegs zu Berlin.Google Scholar
Poeppel, D. (2012). The maps problem and the mapping problem: Two challenges for a cognitive neuroscience of speech and language. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 29(1–2), 34–55.Google Scholar
Poeppel, D. and Embick, D. (2005). Defining the relation between linguistics and neuroscience. In Twenty-first Century Psycholinguistics: Four Cornerstones (ed. Cutler, A.), pp. 173–189. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pourquié, O. (2003). The segmentation clock: Converting embryonic time into spatial pattern. Science Signaling, 301(5631), 328.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K. (1996). Nostalgic views from Building 20. Journal of Linguistics, 32(1), 137–147.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L. (2002). Introducing arguments. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L. (2008). Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ramchand, G. (2008). Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First-Phase Syntax. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ramchand, G. and Svenonius, P. (2008). Mapping a parochial lexicon onto a universal semantics. In The Limits of Syntactic Variation (ed. Biberauer, T.), pp. 219–245. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ramchand, G. and Svenonius, P. (2013). Deriving the functional hierarchy. Presented at 36th GLOW Colloquium, Lunds Universitet.Google Scholar
Raposo, E. (2002). Nominal gaps with prepositional modifiers in Portuguese and Spanish: A case for quick spell-out. Cuadernos de Lingüística del I. U. Ortega y Gasset, 9, 127–144.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (2006). Interface Strategies: Optimal and Costly Computations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. and Siloni, T. (2005). The lexicon–syntax parameter: Reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(3), 389–436.Google Scholar
Reiss, C. (2003). Quantification in structural descriptions: Attested and unattested patterns. Linguistic Review, 20(2–4), 305–338.Google Scholar
Richards, M. (2004). Object shift and scrambling in North and West Germanic: A case study in symmetrical syntax. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Richards, M. (2007). On feature inheritance: An argument from the phase impenetrability condition. Linguistic Inquiry, 38(3), 563–572.Google Scholar
Richards, M. (2008a). Two kinds of variation in a minimalist system. Linguistische Arbeits Berichte, 87, 133–162.Google Scholar
Richards, M. (2009a). Internal pair-merge: The missing mode of movement. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 8, 55–73.Google Scholar
Richards, M. (2009b). Stabilizing syntax: On instability, optionality, and other indeterminacies. Presented at the Syntax workshop, Universität Stuttgart, March 2010.Google Scholar
Richards, M. (2011). Deriving the edge: What’s in a phase? Syntax, 14, 74–95.Google Scholar
Richards, M. (2012). On feature inheritance, defective phases, and the movement–morphology connection. In Phases: Developing the Framework (ed. Gallego, Á.), pp. 195–232. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Richards, N. (2001). Movement in Language: Interactions and Architectures. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Richards, N. (2008b). Lardil ‘case stacking’ and the structural/inherent case distinction. MS, MIT.Google Scholar
Richards, N. (2010). Uttering Trees. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1978). Violations of the wh-island condition in Italian and the subjacency condition. Montreal Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1982). Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1986). Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry, 17(3), 501–557.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax (ed. Haegeman, L.), pp. 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (2001). On the position“Int(errogative)” in the left periphery of the clause. In Current Studies in Italian Syntax (ed. Cinque, G. and Salvi, G.), pp. 287–296. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (2004). On the cartography of syntactic structures. In The Structure of CP and IP (ed. Rizzi, L.), pp. 3–15. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (2006). Grammatically-based target-inconsistencies in child language. In The Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition – North America (ed. Deen, K., Nomura, J., Schulz, B., and Schwartz, B.), pp. 19–49. University of Connecticut Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 4.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (2009). Some elements of syntactic computation. In Biological Foundations and Origin of Syntax (ed. Bickerton, D. and Szathmáry, E.), pp. 63–88. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (2010). On the elements of syntactic variation. Presented at the workshop on linguistic variation and the minimalist program, Barcelona, January 2010.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. and Shlonsky, U. (2007). Strategies of subject extraction. In Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Semantics (ed. Sauerland, U. and Gärtner, H.-M.), pp. 115–160. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. G. (2001). Language change and learnability. In Language Acquisition and Learnability (ed. Bertolo, S.), pp. 81–125. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. G. (2010a). Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. G. (2010b). On the nature of syntactic parameters: A programme for research. Presented at the 2010 Mayfest ‘Bridging Typology and Acquisition.’Google Scholar
Roberts, I. G. (2011). Parametric hierarchies: Some observations. Presented at the workshop on linguistic variation and the minimalist program, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. G. and Holmberg, A. (2009). Introduction: Parameters in minimalist theory. In Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory (ed. Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I., and Sheehan, M.), pp. 1–57. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., and Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-monthold infants. Science, 274, 1926–1928.Google Scholar
Safir, K. (2014). One true anaphor. Linguistic Inquiry, 45, 91–124.Google Scholar
Saito, M., Lin, T. H. J., and Murasugi, K. (2008). N-ellipsis and the structure of noun phrases in Chinese and Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 17(3), 247–271.Google Scholar
Sakas, W. G. and Fodor, J. D. (2012). Disambiguating syntactic triggers. Language Acquisition, 19(2), 83–143.Google Scholar
Samuels, B. (2009). The structure of phonological theory. Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Samuels, B. (2010). Consequences of phases for morphophonology. In Phases: Developing the Framework (ed. Gallego, A.), pp. 251–282. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Samuels, B. (2011a). A minimalist program for phonology. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism (ed. Boeckx, C.), pp. 574–594. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Samuels, B. (2011b). Phonological Architecture: A Biolinguistic Perspective. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Samuels, B. (2012a). Animal minds and the roots of human language. In Language, from a Biological Point of View (ed. Boeckx, C., Mendívil Giró, J., and Horno, M.), pp. 290–313. Cambridge UK: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Samuels, B. (2012b). The emergence of phonological forms. In Towards a Biolinguistic Understanding of Grammar (ed. Di Sciullo, A.), pp. 193–213. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Samuels, B., Hauser, M. D., and Boeckx, C. (in press). Do animals have Universal Grammar? A case study in phonology. In The Oxford Handbook of Universal Grammar (ed. Roberts, I.). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Saunders, P. T. (1992). Collected Works of A. M. Turing: Morphogenesis. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Savescu Ciucivara, O. and Wood, J. (2010). Re-prefixation and Talmy’s parameter. In Proceedings of NELS 36, pp. 2–13.Google Scholar
Schein, B. (1993). Plurals and Events. Volume XXIII. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schein, B. (2002). Events and the semantic content of thematic relations. In Logical Form and Language (ed. Preyer, G. and Peter, G.), pp. 263–344. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schneider-Zioga, K. (2013). The linker in kinande re-examined. MS, California State University.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1972). Chomsky’s revolution in linguistics. New York Review of Books, 18(12), 16–24.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (2006). What is language: Some preliminary remarks. MS, UC Berkeley.Google Scholar
Sheehan, M. (2013). Towards a general alignment parameter hierarchy. In Proceedings of the 31st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Gascadilla.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, U. (2006). Extended projection and CP cartography. Nouveaux cahiers de linguistique française, 27, 83–93.Google Scholar
Sigurdsson, H. Á. (2004a). Meaningful silence, meaningless sounds. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 4(1), 235–259.Google Scholar
Sigurdsson, H. Á. (2004b). The syntax of person, tense, and speech features. Rivista di linguistica, 16, 219–251.Google Scholar
Sigurdsson, H. Á. (2011). On UG and materialization. Linguistic Analysis, 37, 367–388.Google Scholar
Šimík, R. (2011). The elimination of formal wh-features and a theory of free wh-movement. MS, Universität Potsdam.Google Scholar
Simpson, A. (2005). Classifiers and DP structure in Southeast Asia. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax (ed. Cinque, G. and Kayne, R.), pp. 806–838. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, N. and Law, A. (2009). On parametric (and non-parametric) variation. Biolinguistics, 3(4), 332–343.Google Scholar
Snyder, W. (1995). Language acquisition and language variation: The role of morphology. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Snyder, W. (2000). An experimental investigation of syntactic satiation effects. Linguistic Inquiry, 31(3), 575–582.Google Scholar
Snyder, W. (2001). On the nature of syntactic variation: Evidence from complex predicates and complex word-formation. Language, 77(2), 324–342.Google Scholar
Snyder, W. (2011). On language acquisition and syntactic theory. Presented at 50 Years of Linguistics at MIT.Google Scholar
Son, M. (2006). Directed motion and non-predicative Path P. Nordlyd: Troms𝜙 Working Papers on Language and Linguistics, 176–199.Google Scholar
Son, M. and Svenonius, P. (forthcoming). Microparameters of cross-linguistic variation: Directed motion and resultatives. In Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics.Google Scholar
Speas, P. (2010). The minimal structure of the left periphery. Presented at the Language Design conference, UQAM, Montreal, May 2010.Google Scholar
Speas, P. and Tenny, C. (2003). Configurational properties of point of view roles. In Asymmetry in Grammar Vol-I: Syntax and Semantics (ed. Sciullo, A.-M. di), pp. 315–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Spelke, E. (2003). What makes us smart? Core knowledge and natural language. In Language and Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought (ed. Gentner, D. and Goldin-Meadow, S.), pp. 277–311. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Spelke, E. and Kinzler, K. D. (2007). Core knowledge. Developmental Science, 10(1), 89–96.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2007). A program for experimental syntax. Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. and Lau, E. (2013). Syntax and the brain. In The Handbook of Generative Syntax (ed. den Dikken, M.), pp. 971–1005. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Starke, M. (2001). Move dissolves into merge. Ph.D. thesis, Université de Genève.Google Scholar
Starke, M. (2010). Nanosyntax: A short primer to a new approach to language. Nordlyd, 36, 1–6.Google Scholar
Stepanov, A. (2001). Cyclic domains in syntactic theory. Ph.D. thesis, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Stepanov, A. (2007). The end of CED? Minimalism and extraction domains. Syntax, 10(1), 80–126.Google Scholar
Stepanov, A. and Stateva, P. (2006). Successive cyclicity as residual wh-scope marking. Lingua, 116(12), 2107–2153.Google Scholar
Stuhlmueller, A., Tenenbaum, J. B., and Goodman, N. D. (2010). Learning structured generative concepts. Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Sugisaki, K. (2011). Preposition stranding: Its parametric variation and acquisition. Paper presented at the Workshop on Verbal Elasticity, Bellaterra, October 2011.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. (2007). Adpositions, particles and the arguments they introduce. In Argument Structure (ed. Bhattacharya, K. S. T. and Reuland, E.), pp. 63–103. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. (2012a). Lexical insertion in two stages. MS, Universitetet i Troms𝜙.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. (2012b). Merge, project, and bundle. MS, Universitetet i Troms𝜙.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. (2012c). Spanning. MS, Universitetet i Troms𝜙.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P., Ramchand, G., Taraldsen, T., and Starke, M. (eds.) (2009). Nordlyd 36. Special issue on Nanosyntax. Universitetet i Troms𝜙.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. (1984). The possessor that ran away from home. Linguistic Review, 3, 89–102.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. (2006). Strong vs. weak islands. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax (ed. Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H.), vol. IV, pp. 479–531. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Takahashi, S. (2010). The hidden side of clausal complements. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 28, 343–380.Google Scholar
Takahashi, S. and Hulsey, S. (2009). Wholesale late merger: Beyond the A/Adistinction. Linguistic Inquiry, 40, 387–426.Google Scholar
Tattersall, I. (1998). Becoming Human: Evolution and Human Uniqueness. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, H. (2009). The complementizer the. In Little Words (ed. Leow, R., Campos, H., and Lardiere, D.), pp. 87–98. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Tokizaki, H. (2010). Recursive compounds and wordstress location. Paper presented at On Linguistic Interfaces II, University of Ulster, Belfast, Ireland.Google Scholar
Tokizaki, H. (2011). Stress location and the acquisition of morphosyntactic parameters. WCCFL 28 Online Proceedings. http://sites.google.com/site/wccfl28pro/tokizaki.Google Scholar
Toyoshima, T. (2011). Parameterized linearization of multidominance bare phrase structures. Presented at the Parallel Domains workshop, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Truswell, R. (2007). Locality of Wh-movement and the individuation of events. Ph.D. thesis, University College London.Google Scholar
Tsai, W. D. (2010). High applicatives are not high enough: A cartographic solution. MS, Chinese University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Tungseth, M. E. (2008). Verbal Prepositions and Argument Structure: Path, Place and Possession in Norwegian. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Turing, A. M. (1936). On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 2(42), 230–265.Google Scholar
Turing, A. M. (1952). The chemical basis of morphogenesis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B, 237, 37–72.Google Scholar
Turing, A. M. and Wardlaw, C. (1953 [1992]). A diffusion reaction theory of morphogenesis in plants. In Collected Works of A. M. Turing: Morphogenesis (ed. Saunders, P. T.), pp. 37–118. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J. (1988). On government. Ph.D. thesis, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J. (1998). Rhyme and Reason: An Introduction to Minimalist Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J. (1999). Multiple spell-out. In Working Minimalism (ed. Epstein, S. D. and Hornstein, N.), pp. 251–282. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J. (2008). Syntactic Anchors: On Semantic Structuring. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J. (2012). Spell-Out and the Minimalist Program. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, J. and van Koppen, M. (2002). The locality of agreement and the CP-domain. Presented at 25th GLOW Colloquium.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, H. (2008). Identity avoidance: OCP-effects in Swiss Relatives. In Foundational Issues in Linguistics (ed. Freidin, R., Otero, C., and Zubizarreta, M.-L.), pp. 227–250. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Watanabe, A. (1995). Conceptual basis of cyclicity. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 27, pp. 269–291.Google Scholar
Watanabe, A. (2009). Vague quantity, numerals, and natural numbers. Syntax, 13(1), 37–77.Google Scholar
Webelhuth, G. (1992). Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
West-Eberhard, M. J. (2003). Developmental Plasticity and Evolution. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wexler, K. (1998). Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua, 106, 23–79.Google Scholar
Williams, A. (2009). Themes, cumulativity, and resultatives: Comments on Kratzer 2003. Linguistic Inquiry, 40(4), 686–700.Google Scholar
Williams, N. A., Close, J. P., Giouzeli, M., and Crow, T. J. (2006). Accelerated evolution of protocadherin11X/Y: A candidate gene-pair for cerebral asymmetry and language. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B: Neuropsychiatric Genetics, 141(6), 623–633.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, M. (2009). The composition of INFL. An exploration of tense, tenseless languages and tenseless constructions. MS, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Yang, C. (2002). Knowledge and Learning in Natural Language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yang, C. (2004). Universal Grammar, statistics or both? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(10), 451–456.Google Scholar
Yang, C. (2005). On productivity. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 5(1), 265–302.Google Scholar
Yang, C. (2010). Three factors in language acquisition. Lingua, 120, 1160–1177.Google Scholar
Yip, M.J. (2006). The search for phonology in other species. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(10), 442–446.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, R. (2010). A syntactic analysis of interpretive restrictions on imperative, promissive, and exhortative subjects. MS, Yale University.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
  • Cedric Boeckx
  • Book: Elementary Syntactic Structures
  • Online publication: 05 October 2014
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524391.010
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
  • Cedric Boeckx
  • Book: Elementary Syntactic Structures
  • Online publication: 05 October 2014
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524391.010
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
  • Cedric Boeckx
  • Book: Elementary Syntactic Structures
  • Online publication: 05 October 2014
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524391.010
Available formats
×