Abeillé, A. & Borsley, R. D. (2006) ‘Comparative correlatives and parameters’, ms., University of Essex.

Abels, K. (2003) ‘Successive-cyclicity, anti-locality and adposition stranding’, PhD diss., University of Connecticut.

Abney, S. P. (1987) ‘The English Noun Phrase in its sentential aspect’, PhD diss., MIT.

Acquaviva, P. (2002) ‘The morphological dimension of polarity licensing’, Linguistics 40: 925–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adger, D. (2003) Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Adger, D. & Ramchand, G. (2005) ‘Merge and Move: Wh-dependencies revisited’, Linguistic Inquiry 36: 161–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Afarli, T. A. (1989) ‘Passive in Norwegian and in English’, Linguistic Inquiry 20: 101–108.Google Scholar

Akiyama, M. (2004) ‘Multiple nominative constructions in Japanese and Economy’, Linguistic Inquiry 35: 671–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Akmajian, A. & Heny, F. (1975) An Introduction to the Principles of Transformational Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.Google Scholar

Alexiadou, A. (1997) Adverb Placement: A Case Study in Antisymmetric Syntax, Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alexiadou, A. E. & Anagnostopoulou, E. (1998) ‘Parameterizing AGR: Word Order, V-Movement and EPP checking’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 491–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alexiadou, A., Law, P., Meinunger, A. and Wilder, C. (eds) (2000) The Syntax of Relative Clauses, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alexiadou, A. & Wilder, C. (eds) (1998) Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRef

Alexopoulou, T. & Kolliakou, D. (2002) ‘On Linkhood, Topicalisation and Clitic Left Dislocation’, Journal of Linguistics 38: 193–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Almeida, D. A. de A. & Yoshida, M. (2007) ‘A problem for the preposition stranding generalization’, Linguistic Inquiry 38: 349–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alrenga, P. (2005) ‘A sentential subject asymmetry in English and its implications for complement selection’, Syntax 8: 175–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, S. R. & Lightfoot, D. W. (2002) The Language Organ: Linguistics as Cognitive Physiology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Antony, L. M. & Hornstein, N. (2003) Chomsky and His Critics, Blackwell, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Authier, J.-M. (1989) ‘Arbitrary null objects and unselective binding’, in Jaeggli & Safir (eds), pp. 45–67.CrossRef

Authier, J.-M. (1991) ‘V-governed expletives, case theory and the projection principle’, Linguistic Inquiry 22: 721–40.Google Scholar

Authier, J. M. & Reed, L. (2005) ‘The diverse nature of non-interrogative Wh’, Linguistic Inquiry 36: 635–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bach, E. (1977) ‘Review of Paul M. Postal On Raising’, Language 53: 621–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, M. (1988) Incorporation, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google ScholarPubMed

Baker, M. (1997) ‘Thematic roles and syntactic structure’, in Haegeman, L. (ed.) Elements of Grammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 73–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, M., Johnson, K. & Roberts, I. (1989) ‘Passive arguments raised’, Linguistic Inquiry 20: 219–251.Google Scholar

Baltin, M. (2002) ‘Movement to the higher V is remnant movement’, Linguistic Inquiry 33: 653–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baltin, M. & Collins, C. (eds) (2001) The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, Blackwell, Oxford.CrossRef

Barbosa, P. (1995) ‘Null subjects’, PhD diss., MIT.

Barbosa, P. (2000) ‘Clitics: a Window into the Null Subject Property’, in Costa, J. (ed.), Portuguese Syntax: Comparative Studies, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 31–93.Google Scholar

Barbosa, P. (2007) ‘Two kinds of subject pro’, ms., Universidade do Minho.

Barbosa, P., Duarte, M. E. L. & Kato, M. A. (2005) ‘Null subjects in European and Brasilian Portuguese’, Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 4: 11–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barss, A. (2001) ‘Syntactic reconstruction effects’, in Baltin & Collins (eds), pp. 670–696.CrossRef

Basilico, D. (2003) ‘The topic of small clauses’, Linguistic Inquiry 34: 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beck, S. & Johnson, K. (2004) ‘Double objects again’, Linguistic Inquiry 35: 97–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Becker, M. (2006) ‘There began to be a learnability puzzle’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 441–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bejar, S. & Massam, D. (1999) ‘Multiple case checking’, Syntax 2: 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Belletti, A. (1990) Generalized Verb Movement: Aspects of Verb Syntax, Rosenberg and Sellier, Turin.Google Scholar

Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L. (1988) ‘Psych-verbs and θ-theory’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 291–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benmamoun, E. (2006) ‘Licensing configurations: The puzzle of head negative polarity items’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bernstein, J. B. (1993) ‘Topics in the syntax of nominal structures across Romance’, PhD diss., City University of New York.

Bernstein, J. B. (2001) ‘The DP hypothesis: Identifying clausal properties in the nominal domain’, in Baltin and Collins (eds), pp. 536–561.CrossRef

Bhatt, R. & Pancheva, R. (2004) ‘Late merger of degree clauses’, Linguistic Inquiry 35: 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bloomfield, L. (1935) Language, George Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar

Bobaljik, J. (1995) ‘Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inflection’, PhD diss., MIT.

Bobaljik, J. (2002) ‘A-chains at the PF-interface: Copies and “covert” movement’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 20: 197–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boeckx, C. (2000) ‘A note on Contraction’, Linguistic Inquiry 31: 357–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boeckx, C. (2001) ‘Scope reconstruction and A-movement’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 503–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boeckx, C. (2003) Islands and Chains: Resumption as Stranding, Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boeckx, C. (2007) Understanding Minimalist Syntax, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Boeckx, C. & Hornstein, N. (2003) ‘Reply to Control is not movement’, Linguistic Inquiry 34: 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boeckx, C. & Hornstein, N. (2004) ‘Movement under control’, Linguistic Inquiry 35: 431–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boeckx, C. & Hornstein, N. (2006a) ‘The virtues of control as movement’, Syntax 9: 118–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boeckx, C. & Hornstein, N. (2006b) ‘Control in Icelandic and theories of Control’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 591–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boeckx, C. & Stjepanović, S. (2001) ‘Head-ing towards PF’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 345–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Borer, H. (1993) ‘The projection of arguments’, in Benedicto, E. & Runner, J. (eds), Functional Projections UMass Occasional Papers 17, GLSA publications, Amherst Mass.Google Scholar

Borroff, M. L. (2006) ‘Degree phrase inversion in the scope of negation’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 514–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Borsley, R. D. (1992) ‘More on the difference between English restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses’, Journal of Linguistics 28: 139–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Borsley, R. D. (1997) ‘Relative clauses and the theory of phrase structure’, Linguistic Inquiry 28: 629–647.Google Scholar

Borsley, R. & Jaworska, E. (1998) ‘A note on prepositions and case-marking in Polish’, Linguistic Inquiry 19: 685–691.Google Scholar

Borsley, R., Rivero, M. L. & Stephens, J. (1996) ‘Long head movement in Breton’, in Borsley, R. & Roberts, I. (eds), The Syntax of the Celtic Languages: A Comparative Perspective, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bošković, Z. (1997) ‘On certain violations of the superiority condition, AgrO and economy of derivation’, Journal of Linguistics 33: 227–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bošković, Z. (2001) On the Nature of the Syntax–Phonology Interface: Cliticization and Related Phenomena, Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Bošković, Z. (2002a) ‘On multiple wh-fronting’, Linguistic Inquiry 33: 351–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bošković, Z. (2002b) ‘A-Movement and the EPP’, Syntax 5: 167–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bošković, Z. (2004) ‘Topicalization, Focalization, Lexical Insertion and Scrambling’, Linguistic Inquiry 35: 613–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bošković, Z. (2005) ‘On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP’, Studia Linguistica 59: 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bošković, Z. & Lasnik, H. (2003) ‘On the distribution of null complementisers’, Linguistic Inquiry 34: 527–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bowerman, M. (1982) ‘Evaluating competing linguistic models with language acquisition data: Implications of developmental errors with causative verbs’, Quaderni di Semantica 3: 5–66.Google Scholar

Bowerman, M. (1988) ‘The “no negative evidence” problem: How do children avoid an overly general grammar?’, in Hawkins, J. (ed.), Explaining Language Universals, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 73–101.Google Scholar

Bowers, J. (1973) ‘Grammatical relations’, PhD diss., MIT.

Bowers, J. (1993) ‘The syntax of predication’, Linguistic Inquiry 24: 591–656.Google Scholar

Bowers, J. (2002) ‘Transitivity’, Linguistic Inquiry 33: 183–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Braine, M. D. S. (1971) ‘Three suggestions regarding grammatical analyses of children's language’, in Ferguson, C. A. & Slobin, D. I. (eds), Studies of Child Language Development, Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 421–429.Google Scholar

Branigan, P. (1992) ‘Subjects and complementisers’, PhD diss., MIT.

Branigan, P. (2005) ‘The phase theoretic basis for subject–aux inversion’, unpublished paper, Memorial University (www.ucs.mun.ca/∼branigan/papers).

Branigan, P. & MacKenzie, M. (2002) ‘Altruism, Ā-movement and object agreement in Innu-aimûn’, Linguistic Inquiry 33: 385–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bresnan, J. (1970) ‘On complementizers: Toward a syntactic theory of complement types’, Foundations of Language 6: 297–321.Google Scholar

Bresnan, J. (1972) ‘Theory of complementation in English syntax’, PhD diss., MIT (published as Bresnan 1979).

Bresnan, J. (1976) ‘Nonarguments for Raising’, Linguistic Inquiry 7: 265–299.Google Scholar

Bresnan, J. (1979) Theory of Complementation in English Syntax, Garland, New York (published version of Bresnan 1972).Google Scholar

Bresnan, J. (1994) ‘Locative inversion and the architecture of Universal Grammar’, Language 70: 72–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brody, M. (1995) A Radically Minimalist Theory, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.Google Scholar

Broekhuis, H. (2006) ‘Extraction from subjects: Some remarks on Chomsky's “On Phases”’, in Broekhuis, H., Corver, N. & Huybreghts, R. (eds), Organising Grammar, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, K. (1991) ‘Double modals in Hawick Scots’, in Trudgill, P. & Chambers, J. K. (eds), Dialects of English, Longman, London, pp. 74–103.Google Scholar

Brown, R., Cazden, C. & Bellugi, U. (1968) ‘The child's grammar from I to III’, in Hill, J. P. (ed.), Minnesota Symposium on Child Development, vol. 2, pp. 28–73.Google Scholar

Brown, R. & Hanlon, C. (1970) ‘Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech’, in Hayes, J. R. (ed.), Cognition and the Development of Language, Wiley, New York, pp. 11–53.Google Scholar

Bruening, B. (2001) ‘Syntax at the edge: Cross-clausal phenomena and the syntax of Passamaquoddy’, PhD diss., MIT.

Bruening, B. (2004) ‘Two types of wh-scope-marking in Passamaquoddy’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 229–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bruening, B. (2006) ‘Differences between the wh-scope-marking and wh-copy constructions in Passamaquoddy’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bruening, B. (2007) ‘Wh-in-situ does not correlate with wh-indefinites or question particles’, Linguistic Inquiry 38: 139–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Büring, D. (2005) Binding Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burton, S. & Grimshaw, J. (1992) ‘Coordination and VP-internal subjects’, Linguistic Inquiry 23: 305–13.Google Scholar

Burzio, L. (1986) Italian Syntax, Reidel, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Caponigro, I. & Schütze, C. T. (2003) ‘Parameterizing passive participle movement’, Linguistic Inquiry 34: 293–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cardinaletti, A. & Starke, M. (1999) ‘The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns’, in Riemsdijk, H. (ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 145–233.Google Scholar

Carlson, K., Dickey, M. W. & Kennedy, C. (2005) ‘Structural economy in the processing and representation of gapping sentences’, Syntax 8: 208–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carnie, A. (1995) ‘Nonverbal predication and Head Movement’, PhD diss., MIT.

Carrier, J. & Randall, J. H. (1992) ‘The argument structure and syntactic structure of resultatives’, Linguistic Inquiry 23: 173–234.Google Scholar

Carstens, V. (2000) ‘Concord in Minimalist Theory’, Linguistic Inquiry 31: 319–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carstens, V. (2001) ‘Multiple agreement and case deletion: Against ϕ-(in)completeness’, Syntax 4: 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carstens, V. (2003) ‘Rethinking complementiser agreement: agree with a case-checked goal’, Linguistic Inquiry 34: 393–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cecchetto, C. & Oniga, R. (2004) ‘A challenge to null case theory’, Linguistic Inquiry 35: 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cheng, L. (1997) On the Typology of Wh-Questions, Garland, New York.Google Scholar

Cheng, L. & Corver, N. (eds) (2006) Wh-Movement: Moving On, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.

Cheng, L. & Rooryck, J. (2000) ‘Licensing Wh-in-situ’, Syntax 3: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chierchia, G. (2006) ‘Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of language’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 535–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1955) ‘The logical structure of linguistic theory’, mimeo, MIT (subsequently published as Chomsky 1975).

Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic Structures, Mouton, The Hague.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1968) Interview with S. Hampshire in The Listener, May 1968.

Chomsky, N. (1970) ‘Remarks on nominalization’, in Jacobs, R. A. and Rosenbaum, P. S. (eds) Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Ginn, Waltham, Mass., pp. 184–221.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1972) Language and Mind (enlarged edition), Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1973) ‘Conditions on transformations’, in Anderson, S. R. & Kiparsky, P. (eds), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 232–286.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1975) The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory, Plenum Press, New York (published version of Chomsky 1955).Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1977) ‘On Wh-movement’, in Culicover et al. (eds), pp. 71–132.

Chomsky, N. (1980) ‘On binding’, Linguistic Inquiry 11: 1–46.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1982) Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1986a) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use, Praeger, New York.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1986b) Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1989) ‘Some notes on economy of derivation and representation’, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10: 43–74 (reprinted as chapter 2 of Chomsky 1995).Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1993) ‘A Minimalist Program for linguistic theory’, in Hale and Keyser (eds), pp. 1–52 (reprinted as chapter 3 of Chomsky 1995).

Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1998) Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework, MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, no. 15 (also published in Martin, R., Michaels, D. and Uriagereka, J. (eds), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalism in Honor of Howard Lasnik, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass., pp. 89–155).Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1999) Derivation by Phase, MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, no. 18 (also published in Kenstowicz, M. (ed.) (2001) Ken Hale: A Life in Language, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass., pp.1–52).Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2001) ‘Beyond explanatory adequacy’, unpublished manuscript, MIT. (A published version appeared in Belletti, A. (ed.) (2004) Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 3, Oxford University Press, pp. 104–131.)Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2002) On Nature and Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2005a) ‘Three factors in language design’, Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2005b) ‘On Phases’, unpublished paper, MIT (to appear in Freidin, R., Otero, C. P. & Zubizaretta, M.-L. (eds), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.).Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2006) ‘Approaching UG from below’, unpublished paper, MIT.

Chomsky, N. & Lasnik, H. (1977) ‘Filters and Control’, Linguistic Inquiry 8: 425–504.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. & Lasnik, H. (1993) ‘The theory of principles and parameters’, in Jacobs, J., Stechow, A., Sternefeld, W. & Venneman, T. (eds), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 506–569 (reprinted in Chomsky 1995, pp. 13–127).Google Scholar

Chung, S. (1994) ‘Wh-agreement and “Referentiality” in Chamorro’, Linguistic Inquiry 25: 1–45.Google Scholar

Chung, S. (1998) The Design of Agreement: Evidence from Chamorro, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar

Chung, S. (2004) ‘Restructuring and verb-initial order in Chamorro’, Syntax: 7: 199–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cinque, G. (1999) Adverbs and Functional Heads, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. (2002) Functional Structure in DP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 1, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. (2004) ‘“Restructuring” and functional structure’, in Belletti, A. (ed.), The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 3, Structures and Beyond, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 132–191.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. & Kayne, R. S. (eds) (2005) Handbook of Comparative Syntax, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Citko, B. (2005) ‘On the nature of Merge: External Merge, Internal Merge and Parallel Merge’, Linguistic Inquiry 36: 475–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clahsen, H. (2008) ‘Chomskyan syntactic theory and language disorders’, in Ball, M. J., Perkins, M., Mueller, N. & Howard, S. (eds), The Handbook of Clinical Linguistics, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 165–183.Google Scholar

Clifton, C., Fanselow, G. & Frazier, L. (2006) ‘Amnestying superiority violations: Processing multiple questions’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 51–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Cole, P. (1982) Imbabura Quechua, North-Holland, The Hague.Google Scholar

Cole, P. & Hermon, G. (1998) ‘The typology of wh-movement: Wh-questions in Malay’, Syntax 1: 221–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cole, P. & Hermon, G. (2000) ‘Partial wh-movement: Evidence from Malay’, in Lutz et al. (eds), pp. 101–130.CrossRef

Collins, C. (1993) ‘Topics in Ewe syntax’, PhD diss., MIT.

Collins, C. (1997) Local Economy, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.Google Scholar

Collins, C. (2005a) ‘A smuggling approach to the passive in English’, Syntax 8: 81–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Collins, C. (2005b) ‘A smuggling approach to raising in English’, Linguistic Inquiry 36: 289–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Collins, C. & Thráinsson, H. (1993) ‘Object shift in double object constructions and the theory of Case’, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 19: 131–174.Google Scholar

Contreras, H. (1986) ‘Spanish bare NPs and the ECP’, in Bordelois, I., Contreras, H. & Zagona, K. (eds), Generative Studies in Spanish Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 25–49.Google Scholar

Contreras, J. (1987) ‘Small clauses in Spanish and English’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5: 225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coppock, L. (2002) ‘Gapping: In defense of deletion’, Chicago Linguistics Society 37: 133–148.Google Scholar

Cormack, A. & Smith, N. (1999) ‘Where is a sign merged?’, Glot International 4,6: 21.Google Scholar

Cormack, A. & Smith, N. (2000a) ‘Head Movement and negation in English’, Transactions of the Philological Society 98: 49–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cormack, A. & Smith, N. (2000b) ‘Fronting: The Syntax and Pragmatics of “Focus” and “Topic”’, UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 20: 387–417.Google Scholar

Corver, N. (1990) ‘The syntax of left branch extractions’, PhD diss., Tilburg University.

Crain, S. & Pietroski, P. (2002) ‘Why language acquisition is a snap’, The Linguistic Review 19: 163–183.Google Scholar

Culicover, P. W. (1991) ‘Topicalization, inversion and complementiser in English’, in Delfitto, D., Everaert, M., Evers, A. & Stuurman, F. (eds), OTS Working Papers: Going Romance and Beyond, University of Utrecht, pp. 1–45.Google Scholar

Culicover, P. W. & Jackendoff, R. (2001) ‘Control is not movement’, Linguistic Inquiry 30: 483–512.Google Scholar

Culicover, P. W. & Jackendoff, R. (2005) Simpler Syntax, Oxford University Press, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culicover, P. W. & Jackendoff, R. (2006) ‘Turn over control to the semantics’, Syntax 9: 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culicover, P. W. & Levine, R. D. (2001) ‘Stylistic inversion in English: A reconsideration’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 283–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culicover, P. W. & Nowak, A. (2003) Dynamical Grammar: Minimalism, Acquisition and Change, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Culicover, P. W., Wasow, T. & Akmajian, A. (eds) (1977) Formal Syntax, Academic Press, New York.

Cummins, S. & Roberge, Y. (2004) ‘Null objects in French and English’, in Auger, J., Clements, C. & Vance, B. (eds), Contemporary Approaches to Romance Linguistics, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp.121–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cummins, S. & Roberge, Y. (2005) ‘A modular account of null objects in French’, Syntax 8: 44–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Curtiss, S. (1977) Genie: A Psycholinguistic Study of a Modern Day “Wild Child”, Academic Press, London.Google Scholar

Davies, W. D. & Dubinsky, S. (2004) The Grammar of Raising and Control: A Course in Syntactic Argumentation, Blackwell, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dayal, V. (2002) ‘Single-pair versus multiple-pair answers: Wh-in-situ and scope’, Linguistic Inquiry 33: 512–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Déchaine, R.-M. & Wiltschko, M. (2002) ‘Decomposing pronouns’, Linguistic Inquiry 33: 409–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

del Gobbo, F. (2003) ‘Appositives at the interface’, PhD diss., University of California, Irvine.

Dikken, M. (2001) ‘Pluringulars, pronouns and quirky agreement’, The Linguistic Review 18: 19–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Denham, K. (2000) ‘Optional wh-movement in Babine-Witsuwit'en’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 199–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Déprez, V. (2000) ‘Parallel (a)symmetyries and the internal structure of negative expressions’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 253–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vries, M. (2002) The Syntax of Relativization, LOT, Utrecht.Google Scholar

Vries, M. (2006) ‘The syntax of appositive relativization: On specifying co-ordination, false free relatives and promotion’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 229–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Diesing, M. (1992) Indefinites, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.Google Scholar

Diesing, M. & Jelinek, E. (1995) ‘Distributing arguments’, Natural Language Semantics 3: 123–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Donati, C. (2006) ‘On wh-head movement’, in Cheng & Corver (eds), pp. 21–46.

Drubig, H. N. (2003) ‘Toward a typology of focus and focus constructions’, Linguistics 41: 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

du Plessis, H. (1977) ‘Wh-movement in Afrikaans’, Linguistic Inquiry 8: 211–222.Google Scholar

Embick, D. (2004) ‘On the structure of resultative participles in English’, Linguistic Inquiry 35: 355–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Embick, D. & Noyer, R. (2001) ‘Movement operations after Syntax’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 555–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Emonds, J. E. (1976) A Transformational Approach to English Syntax, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar

Emonds, J. E. (1994) ‘Two principles of economy’, in Cinque, G., Koster, J., Pollock, J.-Y., Rizzi, L. & Zanuttini, R. (eds), Paths towards Universal Grammar: Studies in Honor of Richard Kayne, Georgetown University Press, Washington DC, pp. 155–172.Google Scholar

Epstein, S. D., Pires, A. & Seely, T. D. (2005) ‘EPP in T: More controversial subjects’, Syntax, 8: 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ernst, T. (1991) ‘On the scope principle’, Linguistic Inquiry 22: 750–6.Google Scholar

Escribano, J. L. G. (2004) ‘NPs as just NPs’, unpublished paper, University of Oviedo.

Everett, D. (2005) ‘Biology and language: A consideration of alternatives’, Journal of Linguistics 41: 157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Everett, D. (2006) ‘Biology and language: Response to Anderson & Lightfoot’, Journal of Linguistics 42: 385–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fabb, N. (1990) ‘The difference between English restrictive and non-restrictive clauses’, Journal of Linguistics 26: 57–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fanselow, G. (2002) ‘Against remnant VP-movement’, in Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., Barbiers, S. & Gaertner, H.-M. (eds), Dimensions of Movement: From Features to Remnants, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 91–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fanselow, G. & Ćavar, D. (2002) ‘Distributed deletion’, in Alexiadou, A. (ed.), Theoretical Approaches to Universals, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 65–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Farrell, P. (1990) ‘Null objects in Brazilian Portuguese’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 325–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fauconnier, G. (1975) ‘Polarity and the scale principle’, Chicago Linguistics Society 11: 188–199.Google Scholar

Fauconnier, G. (1978) ‘Implication reversal in a natural language’, in Guenthner, F. & Schmidt, S. J. (eds), Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 289–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Felser, C. (1999a) Verbal Complement Clauses: A Minimalist Study of Direct Perception Constructions, Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Felser, C. (1999b) ‘Perception and control: A Minimalist analysis of English direct perception complements’, Journal of Linguistics 34: 351–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Felser, C. (2004) ‘Wh-copying, phases and successive cyclicity’, Lingua 114: 543–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Felser, C. & Rupp, L. (2001) ‘Expletives as arguments: Germanic existential sentences revisited’, Linguistische Berichte, 187: 289–324.Google Scholar

Fillmore, C. J. (1968) ‘The case for case’, in Bach, E. & Harms, R. T. (eds), Universals in Linguistic Theory, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, pp. 1–88.Google Scholar

Fillmore, C. J. (1972) ‘Subjects, speakers and roles’ in Davidson, D. & Harman, G. (eds), Semantics of Natural Language, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar

Fitch, W. T., Hauser, M. D. & Chomsky, N. (2005) ‘The evolution of the language faculty: Clarification and implications’, Cognition 97: 179–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Flagg, E. (2002) ‘Interface issues in the English imperative’, PhD diss., Cambridge Mass.

Fodor, J. D. (2001) ‘Setting syntactic parameters’, in Baltin & Collins (eds), pp. 730–767.CrossRef

Fodor, J. D. & Crowther, C. (2002) ‘Understanding stimulus poverty arguments’, The Linguistic Review 19: 105–145.Google Scholar

Fodor, J. D. & Sakas, W. G. (2005) ‘The subset principle in syntax: Costs of compliance’, Journal of Linguistics 41: 513–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Folli, R. & Harley, H. (2007) ‘Causation, obligation and Argument Structure: On the nature of little v’, Linguistic Inquiry 38: 197–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fox, D. (2000) Economy and Semantic Interpretation, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.Google Scholar

Fox, D. & Nissenbaum, J. (2004) ‘Condition A and scope reconstruction’, Linguistic Inquiry 35: 475–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frank, R. & Vijay-Shanker, K. (2001) ‘Primitive c-command’, Syntax 4: 164–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Franks, S. (1999) ‘Optimality theory and clitics at PF’, Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 7: 101–116.Google Scholar

Franks, S. & Lavine, J. E. (2006) ‘Case and word order in Lithuanian’, Journal of Linguistics 42: 239–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Franks, S. & Progovac, L. (1994) ‘On the placement of Serbo-Croatian clitics’, Indiana Linguistic Studies 7: 69–78.Google Scholar

Frazier, L. & Clifton, C. (2005) ‘The syntax–discourse divide: Processing ellipsis’, Syntax 8: 121–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Freidin, R. (2004) ‘Syntactic Structures redux’, Syntax 7: 101–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Freidin, R. & Vergnaud, J. R. (2001) ‘Exquisite connections: some remarks on the evolution of linguistic theory’, Lingua 111: 639–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Georgopoulos, C. (1985) ‘Variable in Palauan syntax’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 59–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Georgopoulos, C. (1991) Syntactic Variables: Resumptive Pronouns and A′-binding in Palauan, Kluwer, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Giannikidou, A. (1997) ‘The landscape of polarity items’, PhD diss., University of Groningen.

Giannikidou, A. (1998) Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)veridical Dependency, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Giannikidou, A. (1999) ‘Affective dependencies’, Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 367–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Giorgi, A. (2007) ‘On the nature of long-distance anaphors’, Linguistic Inquiry 38: 321–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Giusti, G. (1991) ‘The categorial status of quantifier nominals’, Linguistische Berichte 136: 438–452.Google Scholar

Giusti, G. (1997) ‘The categorial status of determiners’, in Haegeman, L. (ed.), The New Comparative Syntax, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 94–113.Google Scholar

Givón, T. (2002) Biolinguistics: The Santa Barbara Lectures, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goodall, G. (1997) ‘Theta-alignment and the by-phrase’, Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society 33: 129–139.Google Scholar

Green, L. (1998) ‘Semantic and syntactic patterns in African American English’, ms., University of Massachusetts.

Green, M. (2007) Focus in Hausa, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1975) ‘Logic and conversation’, in Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, Academic Press, New York, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar

Grimshaw, J. (1993) ‘Minimal Projection, Heads, and Optimality’, draft manuscript, Rutgers University.

Groat, E. (1995) ‘English expletives: A minimalist approach’, Linguistic Inquiry 26: 354–365.Google Scholar

Groat, E. & O'Neil, J. (1996) ‘Spell-out at the LF interface’, in Abraham, W., Epstein, S. D., Thráinsson, H. & Zwart, C. J.-W. (eds), Minimal Ideas, Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 113–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Groefsema, M. (1995) ‘Understood arguments: A semantic/pragmatic approach’, Lingua 96: 139–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grohmann, K. K. (2003) Prolific Domains, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grohmann, K. K. (2006) ‘Top issues in questions: Topics – Topicalization – Topicalizability’, in Cheng and Corver (eds), pp. 249–288.

Grohmann, K. K., Drury, J. & Castillo, J. C. (2000) ‘No more EPP’, Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 19: 153–166.Google Scholar

Grohmann, K. K. & Haegeman, L. (2002) ‘Resuming reflexives’, Proceedings of the 19th Scandinavian Conference in Linguistics, Tromsø, Norway, 46–62.Google Scholar

Grosu, A. & Horvath, J. (2006) ‘Reply to Bhatt and Pancheva's “Late Merger of Degree Clauses”: The irrelevance of (non)conservativity’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 457–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gruber, J. S. (1965) ‘Studies in lexical relations’, PhD diss., MIT.

Gruber, J. S. (1976) Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Gualmini, A. & Crain, S. (2005) ‘The structure of children's linguistic knowledge’, Linguistic Inquiry 36: 463–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Guasti, M. T. (2002) Language Acquisition: The Growth of Grammar, Bradford Books, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.Google Scholar

Guilfoyle, E. (1994) ‘VNPs, finiteness and external arguments’, Proceedings of NELS 24: 141–155.Google Scholar

Guilfoyle, E., Hung, H. & Travis, L. (1992) ‘Spec of IP and spec of VP: Two subjects in Austronesian languages’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 375–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haddican, B. (2007) ‘The structural deficiency of verbal pro-forms’, Linguistic Inquiry 38: 539–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haeberli, E. (2003) ‘Categorial features as the source of EPP and abstract Case phenomena’, in Brandner, E. & Zinsmeister, H. (eds), New Perspectives on Case Theory, CSLI publications, Stanford, Calif., pp. 89–126.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. (1990) ‘Non-overt subjects in diary contexts’, in Mascarò, J. and Nespor, M. (eds), Grammar In Progress, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 167–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haegeman, L. (1992) Theory and Description in Generative Syntax: A Case Study of West Flemish, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. (1994, 2nd edition) Introduction to Government and Binding Theory, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Haegeman, L. (1995) The Syntax of Negation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haegeman, L. (2000) ‘Inversion, non-adjacent inversion and adjuncts in CP’, in Transactions of the Philological Society 98: 121–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haegeman, L. (2006) ‘Clitic climbing and the dual status of sembrare’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 484–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (1991) On the Syntax of Argument Structure, Lexicon Project Working Papers, MIT, Center for Cognitive Science, Cambridge Mass.Google Scholar

Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (1993a) ‘On argument structure and the lexical expression of semantic relations’, in Hale & Keyser (eds), pp. 53–109.

Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (1993b) (eds) The View from Building 20, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.

Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (1994) ‘Constraints on argument structure’, in Lust, B., Suñer, M. & Whitman, J. (eds), Heads, Projections and Learnability, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, vol. 1, pp. 53–71.Google Scholar

Halle, M. & Marantz, A. (1993) ‘Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection’, in Hale & Keyser (eds), pp.111–176.

Han, C.-H. (2001) ‘Force, negation and imperatives’, The Linguistic Review, 18: 289–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Han, H.-S. (2004) ‘There as an existential operator’, Language Research 40: 451–464 (published by Language Research Institute, Seoul National University).Google Scholar

Hankamer, J. (1971) ‘Constraints on deletion in syntax’, PhD diss., Yale University.

Hankamer, J. & Sag, I. (1976) ‘Deep and surface anaphora’, Linguistic Inquiry 7: 391–428.Google Scholar

Hardt, D. (1993) ‘Verb phrase ellipsis: Form, meaning and processing’, PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania.

Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N. & Fitch, W. T. (2002) ‘The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298: 1569–1579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hawkins, J. A. (2001) ‘Why are categories adjacent?’, Journal of Linguistics, 37: 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hazout, I. (2004a) ‘Long-distance agreement and the syntax of for-to infinitives’, Linguistic Inquiry 35: 338–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hazout, I. (2004b) ‘The syntax of existential constructions’, Linguistic Inquiry 35: 393–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heck, F. (2004) ‘A theory of pied-piping’, PhD diss., Universität Tübingen.

Henderson, B. (2006) ‘Multiple agreement and inversion in Bantu’, Syntax 9: 275–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hendrick, R. (1991) ‘The morphosyntax of aspect’, Lingua 85: 171–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Henry, A. (1995) Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect Variation and Parameter-Setting, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Herdan, S. & Sharvit, Y. (2006) ‘Definite and non-definite superlatives and NPI licensing’, Syntax 9: 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hiemstra, I. (1986) ‘Some aspects of wh-questions in Frisian’, North-Western European Language Evolution (NOWELE) 8: 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hiraira, K. (2001) ‘Multiple agree and the Defective Intervention Constraint’, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 40: 67–80.Google Scholar

Hiraira, K. (2005) ‘Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: Agreement and clausal architecture’, PhD diss., MIT.

Hiramatsu, K. (2003) ‘Children's judgments on negative questions’, Language Acquisition 11: 99–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hoge, K. (1998) ‘The Yiddish double verb construction’, Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics 2: 85–97.Google Scholar

Holmberg, A. (1999) ‘Remarks on Holmberg's generalization’, Studia Linguistica 53: 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holmberg, A. (2000a) ‘Am I unscientific? A reply to Lappin, Levine and Johnson’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 837–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holmberg, A. (2000b) ‘Scandinavian stylistic fronting: How any category can become an expletive’, Linguistic Inquiry 31: 445–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holmberg, A. (2005) ‘Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish’, Linguistic Inquiry 36: 533–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hong, S.-H. (2005) ‘Aspects of the syntax of questions in English and Korean’, PhD diss., University of Essex.

Hornstein, N. (1995) Logical Form: From GB to Minimalism, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Hornstein, N. (1999) ‘Movement and control’, Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hornstein, N. (2001) Move: A Minimalist Theory of Construal, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Hornstein, N. (2003) ‘On Control’, in Hendrick, R. (ed.), Minimalist Syntax, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 6–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hornstein, N. (2007) ‘A very short note on existential constructions’, Linguistic Inquiry 38: 410–411.

Huang, C.-T. J. (1982) ‘Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar’, PhD diss., MIT.

Huang, C.-T. J. (1984) ‘On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns’, Linguistic Inquiry 15: 531–574.Google Scholar

Huang, C.-T. J. (1991) ‘Remarks on the status of the null object’, in Freidin, R. (ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass., pp. 56–76.Google Scholar

Huang, C.-T. J. (1993) ‘Reconstruction and the structure of VP: Some theoretical consequences’, Linguistic Inquiry 24: 103–38.Google Scholar

Huddleston, R. (1994) ‘The contrast between interrogatives and questions’, Journal of Linguistics 30: 411–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hurford, J. (1991) ‘The evolution of the critical period for language acquisition’, Cognition 40: 159–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hyams, N. (1986) Language Acquisition and the Theory of Parameters, Reidel, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hyams, N. (1992) ‘A reanalysis of null subjects in child language’, in Weissenborn, J., Goodluck, H. & Roeper, T. (eds), Theoretical Issues in Language Acquisition, Erlbaum, London, pp. 249–267.Google Scholar

Iatridou, S. (1990) ‘About Agr(P)’, Linguistic Inquiry 21: 766–772.Google Scholar

Ingham, R. (2000) ‘Negation and OV order in Late Middle English’, Journal of Linguistics 36: 13–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ingham, R. (2002) ‘Negated Subjects and Objects in 15th century non-literary English’, Language Variation and Change 14: 291–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ingham, R. (2007) ‘A structural constraint on negation in Late Middle and Early Modern English’, in Krygier, M. & Siworska, L. (eds), Medieval English Mirror 3: To make his Englissh Sweete upon his Tonge, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Mein.Google Scholar

Isac, D. (2006) ‘In defense of a quantificational account of definite DPs’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ishii, T. (2006a) ‘On the relaxation of intervention effects’, in Cheng & Corver (eds), pp. 217–246.

Ishii, T. (2006b) ‘A uniform/nonuniform analysis of overt wh-movement’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jackendoff, R. S. (1972) Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. S. (1974) Introduction to the X-bar Convention, Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. S. (1977a) X-bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. S. (1977b) ‘Constraints on phrase structure rules’, in Culicover et al. (eds) pp. 249–283.

Jackendoff, R. S. & Culicover, P. W. (2003) ‘The semantic basis of control in English’, Language 79: 517–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jaeggli, O. (1982) Topics in Romance Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar

Jaeggli, O. (1984) ‘Subject extraction and the null subject parameter’, NELS 14: 132–153.Google Scholar

Jaeggli, O. (1986) ‘Passive’, Linguistic Inquiry 17: 587–622.Google Scholar

Jaeggli, O. & Safir, K. (1989) The Null Subject Parameter, Kluwer, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jenkins, L. (1975) The English Existential, Narr, Tübingen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jespersen, O. (1937) Analytic Syntax, George Allen and Unwin, London (reprinted in 1969 by Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York).Google Scholar

Jiménez, Á. (2000a) ‘The interpretation of tense and aspect in argument small clauses’, Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 40: 279–298.Google Scholar

Jiménez, Á. (2000b) ‘The aspectual morpheme as and feature movement in argument small clauses’, Generative Linguistics in Poland 1: 59–69.Google Scholar

Johnson, K. (2000) ‘Few dogs like Whiskas or cats Alpo’, University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 23: 59–82.Google Scholar

Jones, M. A. (1994) Sardinian Syntax, Routledge, London.Google Scholar

Julien, M. (2001) ‘The syntax of complex tenses’, The Linguistic Review 18: 125–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kato, M. A. (1999) ‘Strong pronouns and weak pronominals in the null subject parameter’, Probus 11: 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kato, M. A. (2000) ‘The partial pro-drop nature and the restricted VS order in Brazilian Portuguese’, in Kato, M. A. & Negrão, E. V. (eds), The Null Subject Parameter in Brazilian Portuguese, Vervuert-IberoAmericana, Madrid, pp. 223–258.Google Scholar

Katz, J. J. & Postal, P. M. (1964) An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.Google Scholar

Kayne, R. S. (1984) Connectedness and Binary Branching, Foris, Dordrect.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kayne, R. S. (1989) ‘Facets of Romance past participle agreement’, in Benincà, P. (ed.) Dialect Variation and the Theory of Grammar, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 85–103.Google Scholar

Kayne, R. S. (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.Google Scholar

Kayne, R. S. (2005) ‘Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference to English and French’, in Cinque and Kayne (eds), pp. 3–69.

Kayne, R. S. & Pollock, J.-Y. (1978) ‘Stylistic inversion, successive cyclicity, and Move NP in French’, Linguistic Inquiry 9: 595–621.Google Scholar

Kennedy, C. (2002) ‘Comparative deletion and optimality in syntax’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 553–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kennedy, C. (2003) ‘Ellipsis and syntactic representation’, in Schwabe, K. & Winkler, S. (eds) The Syntax–Semantics Interface: Interpreting (Omitted) Structure, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Kennedy, C. & Merchant, J. (2000), ‘Attributive comparative deletion’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 89–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Keyser, S. J. & Roeper, T. (1992) ‘Re: the abstract clitic hypothesis’, Linguistic Inquiry 23: 89–125.Google Scholar

Kimball, J. & Aissen, J. (1971) ‘I think, you think, he think’, Linguistic Inquiry 2: 241–246.Google Scholar

Kishimoto, H. (2006) ‘On the existence of null complementisers in syntax’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 339–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kiss, É. K. (2001) ‘The EPP in a topic-prominent language’, in Svenonius, P. (ed.) Subjects, Expletives and the EPP, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 107–124.Google Scholar

Kitagawa, Y. (1986) ‘Subjects in English and Japanese’, PhD diss., University of Massachusetts.

Klima, E. S. (1964) ‘Negation in English’ in Fodor, J. A. & Katz, J. J. (eds) The Structure of Language, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., pp. 246–323.Google Scholar

Koizumi, M. (1993) ‘Object agreement phrases and the split VP hypothesis’, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 18: 99–148.Google Scholar

Koizumi, M. (1995) ‘Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax’, PhD diss., MIT.

Koopman, H. (1984) The Syntax of Verbs: From Verb Movement Rules in the Kru Languages to Universal Grammar, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar

Koopman, H. & Sportiche, D. (1991) ‘The position of subjects’, Lingua 85: 211–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kornfilt, J. (2004) ‘Unmasking covert complementiser agreement’, unpublished paper presented at LSA conference, Boston Mass., January 2004.

Koster, J. (1978) ‘Why subject sentences don't exist’, in Keyser, S. J. (ed.) Recent Transformational Studies in European Languages, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass., pp. 53–64.Google Scholar

Kratzer, A. (1993) ‘On external arguments’, University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17: 103–130.Google Scholar

Kratzer, A. (1995) ‘Stage-level and individual-level predicates’, in Carlson, G. and Pelletier, F. J. (eds) The Generic Book, Chicago University Press, Chicago, pp. 125–175.Google Scholar

Kratzer, A. (1996) ‘Severing the external argument from its verb’, in. Rooryck, J. & Zaring, L. (eds) Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 109–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kroch, A. (2001) ‘Syntactic Change’, in Baltin and Collins (eds), pp. 699–729.CrossRef

Kuno, S. (1981) ‘Functional Syntax’, Syntax and Semantics 13: 117–135.Google Scholar

Kural, M. (2005) ‘Tree traversal and word order’, Linguistic Inquiry 36: 367–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kuroda, Y. (1988) ‘Whether we agree or not’, Lingvisticae Investigationes 12: 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ladusaw, W. (1979) ‘Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations’, PhD diss., University of Texas, Austin.

Lahiri, U. (1998) ‘Focus and negative polarity in Hindi’, Natural Language Semantics 6: 57–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Laka, M. I. (1990) ‘Negation in syntax: On the nature of functional categories and projections’, PhD diss., MIT.

Landau, I. (1999) ‘Elements of control’, PhD diss., MIT.

Landau, I. (2001) ‘Control and Extraposition: The case of Super-Equi’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 109–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Landau, I. (2002) ‘(Un)interpretable Neg in Comp’, Linguistic Inquiry 33: 465–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Landau, I. (2003) ‘Movement out of control’, Linguistic Inquiry 34: 471–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Landau, I. (2004) ‘The scale of finiteness and the calculus of Control’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 811–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Landau, I. (2006a) ‘Severing the distribution of PRO from case’, Syntax 9: 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Landau, I. (2006b) ‘Chain resolution in Hebrew V(P) fronting’, Syntax 9: 32–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Landau, I. (2007) ‘EPP extensions’, Linguistic Inquiry 38: 485–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lappin, S., Levine, R. D. & Johnson, D. E. (2000a) Topic…Comment: The structure of unscientific revolutions', Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 665–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lappin, S., Levine, R. D. & Johnson, D. E. (2000b) ‘The revolution confused: A response to our critics’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 873–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lappin, S., Levine, R. D. & Johnson, D. E. (2001) ‘The revolution maximally confused’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 901–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lappin, S. & Shieber, S. (2007), ‘Machine learning theory and practice as a source of insight into universal grammar’, Journal of Linguistics 43, 393–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Larson, R. (1988) ‘On the double object construction’, Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–391.Google Scholar

Larson, R. (1990) ‘Double objects revisited: Reply to Jackendoff’, Linguistic Inquiry 21: 589–632.Google Scholar

Larson, R. (1991) ‘Promise and the theory of control’, Linguistic Inquiry 2: 103–139.Google Scholar

Larson, R. & Lefebvre, C. (1991) ‘Predicate cleft in Haitian Creole’, North Eastern Linguistics Society 21: 247–261.Google Scholar

Lasnik, H. (1992) ‘Case and expletives: Notes toward a parametric account’, Linguistic Inquiry 23: 381–405.Google Scholar

Lasnik, H. (1995a) ‘Verbal Morphology: Syntactic Structures meets the Minimalist Program’, in Campos, H. and Kempchinsky, P. (eds) Evolution and Revolution in Linguistic Theory, Georgetown University Press, Georgetown, pp. 251–275.Google Scholar

Lasnik, H. (1995b) ‘Case and expletives revisited: On Greed and other human failings’, Linguistic Inquiry 26: 615–633.Google Scholar

Lasnik, H. (1998) ‘Some reconstruction riddles’, in Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 5: 83–98, Penn Linguistics Circle, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar

Lasnik, H. (1999) ‘Chains of arguments’, in Epstein, S. D. & Hornstein, N. (eds) Working Minimalism, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass., pp. 189–215.Google Scholar

Lasnik, H. (2000) Syntactic Structures Revisited: Contemporary Lectures on Classic Transformational Theory, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass. (with Depiante, M. & Stepanov, A.).Google Scholar

Lasnik, H. (2003) Minimalist Investigations in Linguistic Theory, Routledge, London.Google Scholar

Lasnik, H. (2006) ‘Conceptions of the cycle’, in L. Cheng & N. Corver (eds), pp. 197–216.

Lasnik, H. & Uriagereka, J. (2002) ‘On the poverty of the challenge’, The Linguistic Review 19: 147–150.Google Scholar

Lebeaux, D. (1991) ‘Relative clauses, licensing and the nature of derivation’, in Rothstein, S. (ed.) Syntax and Semantics 25: Perspectives on Phrase Structure, Academic Press, New York, pp. 209–239.Google Scholar

Lebeaux, D. (1995) ‘Where does Binding Theory apply?’, in University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 63–88.Google Scholar

Lechner, W. (2001) ‘Reduced and phrasal comparatives’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 683–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Legate, J. A. & Yang, C. D. (2002) ‘Empirical re-assessment of stimulus poverty arguments’, The Linguistic Review 19: 151–162.Google Scholar

Lema, J. & Rivero, M. L. (1990) ‘Long head movement: ECP vs. HMC’, Proceedings of NELS 28: 219–245.Google Scholar

Lenneberg, E. (1967) Biological Foundations of Language, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar

Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995) Unaccusativity at the Syntax-Lexical Semantic Interface, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.Google Scholar

Lewis, J. & Elman, J. (2002) ‘Learnability and the statistical study of language: Poverty of stimulus arguments revisited’, in Skarabela, B., Fish, S. & Do, A. (eds) Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Cascadilla Press, Somerville Mass., pp. 359–370.Google Scholar

Lightfoot, D. (1976) ‘The theoretical implications of Subject Raising’, Foundations of Language 14: 257–286.Google Scholar

Lightfoot, D. (1999) The Development of Language: Acquisition, Change and Evolution, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Lightfoot, D. & Hornstein, N. (eds) (1994) Verb Movement, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRef

Linebarger, M. (1987) ‘Negative polarity and grammatical representation’, Linguistics and Philosophy 10: 325–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lobeck, A. (1995) Ellipsis: Functional Heads, Licensing and Identification, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Löbel, E. (1989) ‘Q as a functional category’, in Bhatt, C., Löbel, E. & Schmidt, C. (eds) Syntactic Phrase Structure Phenomena, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Longobardi, G. (1994) ‘Reference and proper names’, Linguistic Inquiry 25: 609–666.Google Scholar

Longobardi, G. (1996) ‘The syntax of N-raising: A minimalist theory’, OTS Working Papers no 5, Research Institute for Language and Speech, Utrecht.

Longobardi, G. (2001) ‘The structure of DPs: Some principles, parameters and problems’, in Baltin and Collins (eds), pp. 562–603.CrossRef

Los, B. (2005) The Rise of the To-Infinitive, Oxford University Press, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lust, B. (2006) Child Language: Acquisition and Growth, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lutz, U., Müller, G. and Stechow, A. (eds) (2000) Wh-Scope Marking, Benjamins, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

MacWhinney, B. (1995). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (2nd ed.), Hillsdale, N.J.: LEA.Google Scholar

McCawley, J. D. (1993) ‘Gapping with shared operators’, Berkeley Linguistics Society 19: 245–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCloskey, J. (1997) ‘Subjecthood and subject positions’, in Haegeman, L. (ed.) Elements of Grammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 197–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCloskey, J. (2000) ‘Quantifier Float and Wh-Movement in an Irish English’, Linguistic Inquiry 31: 57–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCloskey, J. (2001) ‘The morphosyntax of WH-extraction in Irish’, Journal of Linguistics 37: 67–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCloskey, J. (2002) ‘Resumption, successive cyclicity, and the locality of operations’, in Epstein, S. D. & Seeley, T. D. (eds) Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 184–226.Google Scholar

McDaniel, D. (1986) ‘Conditions on Wh-chains’, doctoral dissertation, City University of New York.

McDaniel, D. (1989) ‘Partial and multiple wh-movement’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7: 565–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McGinnis, M. (2004) ‘Lethal ambiguity’, Linguistic Inquiry 35: 47–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McGinnis, M. & Richards, N. (eds) (2005) Perspectives on Phases, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 49.

McNally, L. (1992) ‘VP-coordination and the VP-internal subject hypothesis’, Linguistic Inquiry 23: 336–41.Google Scholar

McNeill, D. (1966) ‘Developmental psycholinguistics’, in Smith, F. & Miller, G. A. (eds) The Genesis of Language, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass., pp. 15–84.Google Scholar

Maekawa, T. (2007) ‘The English left periphery in linearisation-based HPSG’, PhD diss., University of Essex.

Mahajan, A. (1994) ‘Active passives’, Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 23: 286–301.Google Scholar

Manzini, M. R. (1994) ‘Locality, Minimalism and parasitic gaps’, Linguistic Inquiry 25: 481–508.Google Scholar

Manzini, M. R. & Roussou, A. (2000) ‘A Minimalist approach to A-movement and control’, Lingua 110: 409–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Manzini, M. R. & Wexler, K. (1987) ‘Parameters, binding theory and learnability’, Linguistic Inquiry 18: 413–444.Google Scholar

Marcus, G. F. (1993) ‘Negative evidence in language acquisition’, Cognition 46: 53–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Martin, R. (1996) ‘A Minimalist theory of PRO and Control’, PhD diss., University of Connecticut, Storrs.

Martin, R. (2001) ‘Null case and the distribution of PRO’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 141–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Matushansky, O. (2006) ‘Head movement in linguistic theory’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 69–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Merchant, J. (2001) The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands and Identity in Ellipsis, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Merchant, J. (2005) ‘Fragments and ellipsis’, Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 661–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Milsark, G. (1974) Existential Sentences in English, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, Indiana.Google Scholar

Milsark, G. (1977) ‘Peculiarities of the existential construction in English’, Linguistic Analysis 3: 1–29.Google Scholar

Miyagawa, S. (2005) ‘On the EPP’, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49: 201–236.Google Scholar

Miyagawa, S. (2006) ‘Moving to the edge’, in Proceedings of the 2006 KALS-KASELL International Conference on English and Linguistics, Pusan National University, Busan, Korea, 3–18.Google Scholar

Montalbetti, M. (1984) ‘After binding’, PhD diss., MIT.

Morgan, J. L. & Travis, L. (1989) ‘Limits on negative information in language input’, Journal of Child Language 16: 531–552.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Moro, A. (1997) The Raising of Predicates, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Müller, G. & Sternefeld, W. (1993) ‘Improper movement and unambiguous binding’, Linguistic Inquiry 24: 461–507.Google Scholar

Nakajima, H. (2001) ‘Verbs in locative constructions and the generative lexicon’, The Linguistic Review 18: 43–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nakajima, H. (2006) ‘Adverbial cognate objects’, Linguistic Inquiry 37: 674–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Neeleman, A. & Szendrői, K. (2004) ‘Superman sentences’, Linguistic Inquiry 35: 149–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Neeleman, A. & Szendrői, K. (2005) ‘Pro Drop and Pronouns’, in Alderete, J.et al. (eds) Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Cascadilla Press, Somerville Mass., pp. 299–307.Google Scholar

Newmeyer, F. J. (2004) ‘Against a parameter-setting approach to language variation’, Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 4: 181–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Newmeyer, F. J. (2005) ‘On split CPs, uninterpretable features and the “perfectness” of language’, Zentrum für allgemeine Sprachwissentshaft Papers in Linguistics 35: 399–422.Google Scholar

Newmeyer, F. J. (2006) ‘A rejoinder to “On the role of parameters in Universal Grammar: a reply to Newmeyer” by Ian Roberts and Anders Holmberg’, ms., University of Washington.

Nkemnji, M. (1995) ‘Heavy pied-piping in Nweh’, PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles.

Nomura, T. (2006) ModalP and Subjunctive Present, Hituzi Syobo, Tokyo.Google Scholar

Nunes, J. (1999) ‘Linearization of chains and phonetic realisation of chain links’, in Epstein, S. D. & Hornstein, N. (eds) Working Minimalism, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass., pp. 217–249.Google Scholar

Nunes, J. (2001) ‘Sideward movement’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 303–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nunes, J. (2004) Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.Google Scholar

Nunes, J. & Uriagereka, J. (2000) ‘Cyclicity and extraction domains’, Syntax 3: 20–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ochi, M. (1999) ‘Multiple spell-out and PF-adjacency’, Proceedings of the North-Eastern Linguistic Society 29: 293–306.Google Scholar

O'Neil, J. (1995) ‘Out of control’, Proceedings of NorthEastern Linguistics Society (NELS) 25: 361–371.Google Scholar

Ormazabal, J. (1995) ‘The syntax of complementation’, PhD diss., University of Connecticut.

Ortiz de Urbina, J. (1989) Parameters in the Grammar of Basque, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar

Ouhalla, J. (1990) ‘Sentential negation, relativized minimality and the aspectual status of auxiliaries’, The Linguistic Review 7: 183–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Oya, T. (2002) ‘Reflexives and resultatives: Some differences between English and German’, Linguistics 40: 961–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Perlmutter, D. (1970) ‘The two verbs begin’, in Jacobs, R. A. & Rosenbaum, P. S. (eds) Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Ginn, Waltham Mass., pp. 107–119.Google Scholar

Pesetsky, D. (1982) ‘Complementiser-trace phenomena and the Nominative Island Condition’, Linguistic Review 1: 297–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pesetsky, D. (1987) ‘Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding’, in Reuland, E. J. and Meulen, A. G. B. (eds) The Representation of (In)definiteness, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass., pp. 98–129.Google Scholar

Pesetsky, D. (1995) Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.Google Scholar

Pesetsky, D. (1997) ‘Optimality Theory and syntax: Movement and pronunciation’, in Archangeli, D. & Langendoen, D. T. (eds) Optimality Theory: An Overview, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 134–170.Google Scholar

Pesetsky, D. (1998) ‘Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation’, in Barbosa, P., Fox, D., Hagstrom, P., McGinnis, M. & Pesetsky, D. (eds) Is the Best Good Enough? MIT Press, Cambridge Mass., pp. 337–383.Google Scholar

Pesetsky, D. (2000) Phrasal Movement and Its Kin, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.Google Scholar

Pesetsky, D. & Torrego, E. (2001) ‘T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences’, in Kenstowicz, M. (ed.) Ken Hale: A Life in Language, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass., pp. 355–426.Google Scholar

Pesetsky, D. & Torrego, E. (2007) ‘The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features’, in Karimi, S., Samiian, V. & Wilkins, W. (eds) Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 262–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Phillips, C. (2003) ‘Linear order and constituency’, Linguistic Inquiry 34: 37–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (2000) ‘The metric of open-mindedness’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 18: 859–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Poletto, C. & Benincà, P. (2004) ‘Topic, Focus and V2: Defining the CP sublayers’, in Rizzi, L.. (ed.) The Structure of IP and CP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 2, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Polinsky, M. & Potsdam, E. (2001) ‘Long-distance agreement and Topic in Tsez’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 583–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Polinsky, M. & Potsdam, E. (2006) ‘Expanding the scope of control and raising’, Syntax 9: 171–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A. (1994) Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, CSLI Publications, Chicago.Google Scholar

Pollock, J.-Y. (1989) ‘Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP’, Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.Google Scholar

Postal, P. M. (1966) ‘On so-called pronouns in English’, in Dinneen, F. (ed.) Nineteenth Monograph on Language and Linguistics, Georgetown University Press, Washington DC (reprinted in D. Reibel & S. Schane (eds) (1969) Modern Studies in English, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliff N.J., pp. 201–224).Google Scholar

Postal, P. M. (1974) On Raising: One Rule of English Grammar and Its Theoretical Implications, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.Google Scholar

Postal, P. M. (1998) Three Investigations of Extraction, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.Google Scholar

Potsdam, E. (1997) ‘NegP and Subjunctive’, Linguistic Inquiry 28: 533–541.Google Scholar

Potsdam, E. (1998) Syntactic Issues in the English Imperative, Garland, New York.Google Scholar

Potts, C. (2002) ‘The syntax and semantics of as-parentheticals’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 623–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pullum, G. K. & Scholz, B. C. (2002) ‘Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments’, The Linguistic Review 19: 9–50.Google Scholar

Rackowski, A. & Richards, N. (2005) ‘Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study’, Linguistic Inquiry 36: 565–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Radford, A. (1981) Transformational Syntax, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Radford, A. (1988) Transformational Grammar: A First Course, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Radford, A. (1992) ‘The acquisition of the morphosyntax of finite verbs in English’, in Meisel, J. M. (ed.), The Acquisition of Verb Placement, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 23–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Radford, A. (1993) ‘Head-hunting: On the trail of the nominal Janus’, in Corbett, G., Fraser, N. M. & McGlashan, S. (eds) Heads in Grammatical Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 73–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Radford, A. (1997a) Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English, Cambridge University Press, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Radford, A. (1997b) Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction, Cambridge University Press, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Radford, A. (2004a) Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Radford, A. (2004b) English Syntax: An Introduction, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Radford, A. (2007) ‘Split projections, percolation, syncretism and interrogative auxiliary inversion’, Research Reports in Linguistics 53: 157–191, University of Essex.Google Scholar

Radford, A., Atkinson, M., Britain, D., Clahsen, H. & Spencer, A. (1999) Linguistics: An Introduction, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Radford, A. & Vincent, M. (2007) ‘On past participle agreement in transitive clauses in French’, paper presented to XXXIII Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, available at http://amsacta.cib.unibo.it/archive/00002397/01/PROCEEDINGS_IGG33.pdf

Ramchand, G. (1996) ‘Two subject positions in Scottish Gaelic: The syntax-semantics interface’, Natural Language Semantics 4: 165–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Raposo, E. (1986) ‘On the null object in European Portuguese’, in Jaeggli, O. & Silva-Corvalan, C. (eds) Studies in Romance Linguistics, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 373–390.Google Scholar

Reinhart, T. (1998) ‘Wh-in-situ in the framework of the Minimalist Program’, Natural Language Semantics 6: 29–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reintges, C. H., LeSourd, P. & Chung, S. (2002) ‘Movement, wh-agreement and apparent wh-in-situ’, paper presented to Workshop on Wh-Movement, University of Leiden, December 2002.

Reintges, C. H., LeSourd, P. & Chung, S. (2006) ‘Movement, wh-agreement and apparent wh-in-situ’, in Cheng and Corver (eds), pp. 165–194.

Reuland, E. (2000) ‘Revolution, discovery and an elementary principle of logic’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 843–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reuland, E. (2001a) ‘Primitives of Binding’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 439–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reuland, E. (2001b) ‘Confusion compounded’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 879–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reuland, E. & Everaert, M. (2001) ‘Deconstructing Binding’, in Baltin & Collins (eds), pp. 634–670.CrossRef