1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Head Movement in Syntax

Head Movement in Syntax

image of Head Movement in Syntax
GBP
Buy:£83.00 + Taxes

Head Movement in Syntax argues that verb movement is a narrow syntactic phenomenon that can affect locality constraints. The altered locality domains are detectable from the way certain phrasal elements such as a phrase containing a Wh are forced to undergo movement. The basic idea explored in the book dates back to Chomsky (1986) where the movement of a verb is proposed to be able to affect and alter a barrier. This idea is translated into contemporary minimalist apparatus to capture locality conditions, with Wh movement in Malayalam, a Dravidian language spoken in Southern India, providing the necessary data. The book also points out that analysing Wh movement in Malayalam as a sub-case of Focus movement is untenable and offers a fresh perspective on Wh-in-situ versus Wh-movement. In addition, the book provides a comprehensive analysis of the pronominal system in Malayalam, a language that violates the canonical binding conditions.

References

  1. Abels, K. & Neeleman, A
    2007 Linear Symmetries and the LCA. Ms. UiT & University College, London. Published later as Abels & Neeleman 2012 Syntax15(1): 25–74. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2011.00163.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2011.00163.x [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexiadou, A. & Anagnostopoulou, E
    1998 Parametrizing AGR: Word order, verb-movement and EPP checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory16: 491-539. doi: 10.1023/A:1006090432389
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006090432389 [Google Scholar]
  3. Amritavalli, R. & Jayaseelan, K.A
    2005a Finiteness and negation in Dravidian. InThe Oxford Handbook Of Comparative Syntax, G. Cinque & R.S. Kayne (eds), 114-136. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. 2005b Scrambiling in the cleft construction in Dravidian. InThe Free Word Order Phenomena, J. Sabel & M. Saito (eds). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Anandan, K.N
    1985: Predicate Nominals In English And Malayalam. M. Litt. dissertation. CIEFL. Hyderabad.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. 1993 Constraints on extraction from coordinate structures in English and Malayalam. Ph.D. dissertation, Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages, Hyderabad, India.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Aoun, J. & Li, Y.-H. A
    1993a  Wh-elements in situ: Syntax or LF?Linguistic Inquiry24: 199–238.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. 1993b On some differences between Chinese and Japanese Wh-elements. Linguistic Inquiry24: 365–372.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Asher, R.E. & Kumari, T.C
    1997 Malayalam. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bachrach, A. & Katzir, R
    2008 Right node raising and delayed spell-out. InInterphases: Phase-Theoretic Investigations of Linguistic Interfaces, K.K. Grohmann (ed.). Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Baker, M
    1988 Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bayer, J
    2005 Wh-in-situ. InThe Blackwell Companion to Syntax 5, M.B.H. Everaert & H.C. van Riemsdijk (eds). Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Beck, S
    1996 Quantified structures as barriers for LF-movement. Natural Language Semantics4: 1-56. doi: 10.1007/BF00263536
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00263536 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2006 Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics14: 1-56. doi: 10.1007/s11050‑005‑4532‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-005-4532-y [Google Scholar]
  15. Beck, S. & Kim, S.-S
    1997 On Wh- and operator scope in Korean. Journal Of East Asian Linguistics6: 339–384. doi: 10.1023/A:1008280026102
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008280026102 [Google Scholar]
  16. Berman, S
    1991 On the Semantics and Logical Form of WH-Clauses. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Biberauer, T
    2005 Splitting not spreading: A new perspective on the C/T connection. Paper presented atGLOW in Asia, New Delhi.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Boeckx, C. & Grohmann, K.K
    2007 Putting phases in perspective. Syntax10: 204–222. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2007.00098.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2007.00098.x [Google Scholar]
  19. Boskovic, Z
    2002 On multiple Wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry33: 351–383. doi: 10.1162/002438902760168536
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438902760168536 [Google Scholar]
  20. Brandner, E
    2000 Scope marking and clausal typing. InWh-Scope Marking [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 37], U. Lutz , G. Müller & A. von Stechow (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.37
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.37 [Google Scholar]
  21. Brody, M
    2000 Mirror theory: Syntactic representation in perfect syntax. Linguistic Inquiry31: 29-56 doi: 10.1162/002438900554280
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438900554280 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2013 Syntax and symmetry. STIL – Studies in Linguistics6:167-177. Special issue on Directionality of Phrase Structure Building .
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Brokehuis, H
    2013 Feature Inheritance Versus Extended Projections. Lingbuzz/001775.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Bye, P. & Svenonius P
    2011 Exponence, phonology and non-concatenative morphology. Ms, University of Tromsø.
  25. Cable, S
    2007 The Grammar of Q: Q-particles and the Nature of Wh-fronting, as Revealed by the Wh-questions of Tlingit. PhD dissertation, MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. 2010 The Grammar Of Q: Q-Particles, Wh-Movement, And Pied-Piping. Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195392265.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195392265.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2012 The optionality of movement and EPP in Dholuo. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. http.//link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11049-012-9172-6/fulltext.html doi: 10.1007/s11049‑012‑9172‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-012-9172-6 [Google Scholar]
  28. Cardinaletti, A
    2006 Subjects and Wh-questions: Some new generalizations. InRomance Linguistics 2006: Selected Papers from the 36th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), New Brunswick, March-April 2006 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 287], J. Camacho , N. Flores-Ferrán , L. Sanchez , V. Deprez & M.J. Cabrera (eds), 57-78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.287.06car
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.287.06car [Google Scholar]
  29. Cheng, L. & Huang, J. C-T
    1996 Two types of donkey sentences. Natural Language Semantics4(2): 121-163. doi: 10.1007/BF00355411
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00355411 [Google Scholar]
  30. Cheng, L. L-S
    2009 Wh- in-situ, from the 1980s to now. Language And Linguistics Compass3(3): 767-791. doi: 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2009.00133.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00133.x [Google Scholar]
  31. Cheng, L
    2003 Wh-in-situ. Glot International7(5): 129–137.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Cheng, L. L.-S
    1991 On the Typology of Wh-questions. PhD dissertation, MIT. (Also published by Garland, 1997).
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Cheng, L. L.-S. & Rooryck, J
    2000 Licensing wh-in-situ. Syntax3: 1–19. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9612.00022
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00022 [Google Scholar]
  34. Choi, Y-S
    1999 Negation, its scope and NPI licensing in Korean. InESCOL ’99, R. Daly & A. Riehl (eds), 25–36. CLC Publications: Ithaca.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Chomsky, N
    1970 Remarks on nominalization. InReadings in English Transformational Grammar, R.A. Jacobs & P.S. Rosenbaum (eds). Waltham MA: Ginn.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. 1986 Barriers. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 1998 Some observations on economy in generative grammar. InIs the Best Good Enough? Optimality and Competition in Syntax, P. Barbosa , D. Fox , P. Hagstrom , M. McGinnis & D. Pesetsky (eds). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 2000 Minimalist inquiries: The framework. Instep by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, R. Martin , D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (eds). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. 2001 Derivation by phase. InKen Hale: A Life In Language, M. Kenstowicz (ed.), 1-52. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. 2008 On phases. Ms. MIT. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262062787.003.0007
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262062787.003.0007
  41. 2013 Problems of projection. Lingua130: 33–49. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  42. Chung, D. & Park, H.-K
    1997 NP is outside of negation scope. InJapanese/Korean Linguistics 6, H.-M. Sohn & J. Haig (eds), 415–435. Stanford CA: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Cinque, G
    1999 Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Cole, P. & Hermon, G
    1998 The typology of Wh-movement: Wh-questions in Malay. Syntax1(3): 221-258. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9612.00009
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00009 [Google Scholar]
  45. Cole, P. , Harbert, W. & Hermon, G
    1982 Headless relative clauses in Quechua. International Journal Of American Linguistics48(2): 113-124. doi: 10.1086/465723
     https://doi.org/10.1086/465723 [Google Scholar]
  46. De Vos, M. & Vicente, L
    2005 Coordination under right node raising. InWCCFL 24, J. Alderete , C.-H. Han & A. Kochetov (eds), 97–104. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Decháine R.-M. & Wiltschko, M
    2002 Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry33(3): 409–442. doi: 10.1162/002438902760168554
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438902760168554 [Google Scholar]
  48. Demirdache, H
    1997a Condition C. InAtomism and Binding, H. Bennis , P. Pica & J. Rooryck (eds). Dordrecht: Foris.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 1997b On the temporal location of predication times: The role of determiners in Lillooet Salish. In Proceedings of WCCFL XV , 129–144.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Den Besten, H
    1976 On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. Ms, University of Amsterdam & MIT.
  51. Den Dikken, M
    2007 Phase extension: Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction. Theoretical Linguistics33(1): 1-41. doi: 10.1515/TL.2007.001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/TL.2007.001 [Google Scholar]
  52. Diesing, M
    1992 Indefiniteness. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Donati, C
    2006 On Wh-head movement. InWh-movement: Moving on, L. Cheng & N. Corver (eds), 21–46. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Ducceschi, L
    2012 Talking about This and That: Deictic Pronouns in Dravidian and Indo-Aryan Languages. PhD dissertation, University of Verona.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Eilam, A
    2008 Intervention effects: Why Amharic patterns differently. In Presentation at the 27th Annual West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) , UCLA, May 16–18, 2008.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Elbourne, P
    2005 Situations and Individuals. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Emonds, J
    1978 The verbal complex V′-V in French. Linguistic Inquiry25: 609–665.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Fanselow, G
    2001 Features, Θ-roles, and free constituent order. Linguistic Inquiry32: 405-437. doi: 10.1162/002438901750372513
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438901750372513 [Google Scholar]
  59. 2003 Münchhausen-style head movement and the analysis of verb second. InHead Movement and Syntactic Theory [UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 10], A. Mahajan (ed.). Los Angeles CA: UCLA Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. 2007 The restricted access of information structure to syntax – A minority report. InThe Notions of Information Structure [Working Papers of the SFB632, Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (ISIS) 6], C. Féry , G. Fanselow & M. Krifka (eds). Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. 2009 Bootstrapping verb movement and the clausal architecture of German. InAdvances in Comparative Germanic Syntax [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 141], A. Alexiadou , J. Hankamer , T. McFadden , J. Nuger & F. Schäfer (eds), 85-118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.141.05boo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.141.05boo [Google Scholar]
  62. Fanselow, G. & Lenertovà, D
    2011 Left peripheral focus: Mismatches between syntax and information structure. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory29(1): 169-209. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑010‑9109‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-010-9109-x [Google Scholar]
  63. Frascarelli, M. & Hinterhölzl, R
    2004 Types of topics in German and Italian. At Workshop on Information Structure and the Architecture of Grammar, University of Tübingen, February.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Fukui, N
    1993 Parameters and optionality. Linguistic Inquiry24(3): 399-420.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. 2006 A Review of Theoretical Comparative Syntax: Studies in Macroparameters. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Gallego, Á.J
    2005 Phase sliding. Ms, UAB/UMD.
  67. 2010 Phase Theory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 152]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.152
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.152 [Google Scholar]
  68. Gamut, L.T.F
    1991 Logic, Language And Meaning. Chicago IL: University Press Of Chicago.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Georgi, D. & Müller, G
    . 2010 Noun phrase structure by reprojection . Syntax13: 1–36. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2009.00132.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2009.00132.x [Google Scholar]
  70. Givón, T
    1983 Topic Continuity In Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study [Typological Studies in Language 3]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.3
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.3 [Google Scholar]
  71. Greenberg, J
    1963 Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. InUniversals of Language, J. Greenberg (ed.), 73–113. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Grewendorf, G
    2001 Multiple Wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry32: 87–122. doi: 10.1162/002438901554595
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438901554595 [Google Scholar]
  73. 2005 The discourse configurationality of scrambling. InThe Free Word Order Phenomenon: Its Syntactic Sources And Diversity, J. Sabel & M. Saito (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Grewendorf, G. & Sabel, J
    1999 Scrambling in German and Japanese: Adjunction versus multiple specifiers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory17: 1–65. doi: 10.1023/A:1006068326583
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006068326583 [Google Scholar]
  75. Grimshaw, J
    1991 Extended projections. Ms, Brandeis University.
  76. 2000 Locality and extended projection. InLexical Specification and Insertion [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 197], P. Coopmans , M.B.H. Everaert & J. Grimshaw (eds), 115-134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.197.07gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.197.07gri [Google Scholar]
  77. Gruber, B
    2008 Complementiser Agreement – New Evidence from the Upper Austrian Variant of Gmunden. MA thesis, University of Vienna.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Gryllia, S
    2008 On the Nature of Preverbal Focus in Greek: A Theoretical and Experimental Approach. PhD dissertationa, Universiteit Leiden. https://Openaccess.Leidenuniv.Nl/Bitstream/1887/13437/3/Gryllia.Thesis.Pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Hagstrom, P
    1998 Decomposing Questions. Phd dissertation, MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Haider, H
    1992 Branching and discharge. Working Papers of the SFB 340 [#23]. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. 1993 Principled variability –Parametrization without parameter fixing. InThe Parametrization of Universal Grammar, G. Fanselow (ed.), 1–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.8.02hai
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.8.02hai [Google Scholar]
  82. 1995 Studies on phrase structure and economy. SFB Working Papers #70. University of Stuttgart.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. 2000 OV is more basic than VO. InThe Derivation of VO and OV [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 31], P. Svenonius (ed.), 45-68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.31.03hai
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.31.03hai [Google Scholar]
  84. 2001 Heads and selection. InSemi-Lexical Categories, N. Corver & H. van Riemsdijk (eds). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110874006.67
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110874006.67 [Google Scholar]
  85. 2010 The Syntax of German. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511845314
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511845314 [Google Scholar]
  86. 2013 Symmetry Breaking in Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. 2014 Head directionality – In syntax and morphology. Ms. revised draft version (July - Oct 2014), University of Salzburg.
  88. Hale, K
    1983 Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory1: 3-47. doi: 10.1007/BF00210374
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00210374 [Google Scholar]
  89. Hamblin, C.L
    1973 Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language10: 41-53.
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Han, C.-H. , Lidz, J. & Musolino, J
    2007 V-raising and grammar competition in Korean: Evidence from negation and quantifier scope. Linguistic Inquiry38: 1-47. doi: 10.1162/ling.2007.38.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2007.38.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  91. Heck, F
    2004 A Theory of Pied-piping. PhD dissertation, University of Tübingen.
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Heim, I
    1982 The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Hoji, H
    1985 Logical Form Constraints and Configurational Structures in Japanese. PhD dissertation, University of Washington.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Holmberg, A. & Roberts, I
    2013 The syntax-morphology relation. Lingua130: 111-131. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.006 [Google Scholar]
  95. Holmberg, A
    2005 Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry36: 533-564. doi: 10.1162/002438905774464322
     https://doi.org/10.1162/002438905774464322 [Google Scholar]
  96. Horvath, J
    1986 FOCUS in the Theory of Grammar and the Syntax of Hungarian. Dordrecht: Foris.
     [Google Scholar]
  97. 2007 Separating "Focus Movement" from Focus. InPhrasal and Clausal Architecture [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 101], S. Karimi , V. Samiian & W. Wilkins (eds), 108-145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.101.07hor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.101.07hor [Google Scholar]
  98. 2010 “Discourse features”. Syntactic displacement and the status of contrast. Lingua120: 1346–1369. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.07.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.07.011 [Google Scholar]
  99. Huang, C.-T. J
    1982 Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  100. 2010 Between Syntax and Semantics. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Jackendoff, R
    1977 Syntax: A study of phrase structure. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph Two. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Jayaseelan, K.A
    1989 Parametric Studies in Malayalam Syntax. New Delhi: Allied Publishers Limited.
     [Google Scholar]
  103. 1999 A focus phrase above vP. Proceedings of the Nanzan GLOW . Nanzan University: Nagoya.
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Jayaseelan K.A
    2001a IP‐internal topic and focus phrases. Studia Linguistica55: 39–75. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9582.00074
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00074 [Google Scholar]
  105. Jayaseelan, K.A
    2001b Questions and question-word incorporating quantifiers in Malayalam. Syntax4: 63-93. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9612.00037
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00037 [Google Scholar]
  106. 2003 Question words in focus positions. Linguistic Variation Yearbook3(1): 69-99. doi: 10.1075/livy.3.05jay
     https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.3.05jay [Google Scholar]
  107. Jayaselan K.A
    2011 Coordination and finiteness in Dravidian. Invited talk at the University of Tromsø, 9-10 June.
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Kayne, R.S
    1994 The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Kenesei, I
    1986 Focus as Identification. http.//www.nytud.hu/kenesei/publ/focus.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Kim, S.-S
    2002 Focus matters: Two types of intervention effect. Paper Presented atWCCFL 21, Santa Cruz.
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Kishimoto, H
    1992 LF pied piping: Evidence from Sinhala. Gengo Kenkyu102: 46–87.
     [Google Scholar]
  112. 2005 Wh-in-situ and movement in Sinhala questions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory23: 1–51. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑004‑6574‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-6574-0 [Google Scholar]
  113. Kíss, K.É
    1998 Identificational focus versus information focus. Language74: 245-227. doi: 10.1353/lan.1998.0211
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1998.0211 [Google Scholar]
  114. Koizumi, M
    2000 String vacuous overt verb raising. Journal of East Asian Linguistics9: 227–285. doi: 10.1023/A:1008311420647
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008311420647 [Google Scholar]
  115. Krifka, M
    2008 Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica55(3-4): 243-276. doi: 10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3‑4.2
     https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.2 [Google Scholar]
  116. Kuroda, S.-Y
    1965 Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language. PhD dissertation. MIT. (Also published with Garland, 1979).
     [Google Scholar]
  117. 1972 The categorical and the Thetic judgment: Evidence from Japanese. Foundations of Language9: 153-85
     [Google Scholar]
  118. 2005 Focusing on the matter of topic: A study of wa and ga in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics14: 1–58. doi: 10.1007/s10831‑004‑2701‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-004-2701-5 [Google Scholar]
  119. Larson, B
    2011 A dilemma with accounts of right node raising. Linguistic Inquiry43(1): 143-150. doi: 10.1162/LING_a_00078
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00078 [Google Scholar]
  120. Larson, R.K
    1988 On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry19: 335–392.
     [Google Scholar]
  121. Lasnik, H
    1986 On the necessity of the binding conditions. Reproduced in Lasnik 1989.
  122. Lee, F
    2003 Anaphoric R-expressions as bound variables. Syntax6: 84–114. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9612.00057
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00057 [Google Scholar]
  123. Longobardi, G
    1994 Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry25: 609–665.
     [Google Scholar]
  124. Madhavan, P
    1987 Clefts and Pseudo-Clefts in English and Malayalam: A Study in Comparative Syntax. PhD dissertation, CIEFL, Hyderabad.
     [Google Scholar]
  125. Matthewson, L
    2004 On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Journal of American Linguistics70: 369–415. doi: 10.1086/429207
     https://doi.org/10.1086/429207 [Google Scholar]
  126. McCawley, J.D
    1971 Tense and time reference in English. InStudies in Linguistic Semantics, C.J. Fillmore & D.T. Langėndoen (eds), 96-113. Irvington.
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Meinunger, A
    1995 Case configuration and referentiality. InConsole II Proceedings, R. Eckardt & V. van Geenhoven (eds).
     [Google Scholar]
  128. Menon, M
    2012 The Apparent Lack of Adjectival Category in Malayalam and Other Related Languages. http.//Faculty.Human.Mie-U.Ac.Jp/~Glow_Mie/IX_Proceedings_Oral/10Menon.Pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  129. Miyagawa, S
    2010 Why Agree? Why Move: Unifying Agreement-Based and Discourse Configurational Languages. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Mortensen, D
    2003 Two Kinds of Variable Elements in Hmong Anaphora. Ms, University of California at Berkeley. http.//www.Pitt.Edu/~Drm31/Papers/Two_Kinds_Of_Variable_Elements.Pdf
  131. Muriungi, P
    2004 Wh-movement in Kitharaka as focus movement. InProceedings of the Conference on the Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics of Questions held as part of 16th ESSLLI, I. Comorovski & M. Krifka (eds). Nancy: ESSLI, University Of Nancy.
     [Google Scholar]
  132. Nakamura, N
    2002 On feature movement. InDimensions Of Movement. From Features to Remnants [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 48], A. Alexiadou , E. Anagnostopoulou , S. Barbiers & H.-M. Gärtner (eds), 243-267. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.48.11nak
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.48.11nak [Google Scholar]
  133. Nakao, C
    2004 A note on Japanese anaphoric R-expressions. Linguistic Research20: 207-214, University of Tokyo.
     [Google Scholar]
  134. Narahara, T
    1995 Alternatives to reflexives in Thai and Vietnamese: Binding theory and language variations. InPapers From The Third Annual Meeting Of The Southeast Asian Linguistics Society, M. Alves (ed.). Tempe AZ: Arizona State University, Program For Southeast Asian Studies.
     [Google Scholar]
  135. Neeleman, A. & Szendroi, K
    2005 Radical pro drop and the morphology of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry38: 671–714. doi: 10.1162/ling.2007.38.4.671
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2007.38.4.671 [Google Scholar]
  136. Nishigauchi, T
    1986 Quantification in Syntax. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
     [Google Scholar]
  137. Pesetsky, D
    1997 Wh-in situ: Movement and unselective binding. InThe Representation of (In)definiteness, E. Reuland & A.G.B. ter Meulen (eds). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  138. 2000 Phrasal Movement and its Kin. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  139. 2007 Property delay (remarks on “phase extension” by Marcel den Dikken). Theoretical Linguistics33(1): 105–120. doi: 10.1515/TL.2007.008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/TL.2007.008 [Google Scholar]
  140. Ramchand, G
    2014  Deriving variable linearization . Natural Language and Linguistic Theory32: 263-282. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑013‑9225‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-013-9225-5 [Google Scholar]
  141. Reinhart, T
    1993 Wh-in-situ in the framework of the minimalist program. Lecture at Utrecht Linguistic Colloquium. Distributed by OTS Working Papers in Linguistics and printed with slight revisions in Natural Language Semantics 1997.
  142. Richards, N
    2001 A distinctness condition on linearization. InProceedings of the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, K. Megerdoomian & L.A. Bar-el (eds), 470-483. Somerville MA: Cascadilla.
     [Google Scholar]
  143. 2001 Movement in Language: Interactions and architectures. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  144. Rizzi, L
    1997 The fine structure of the left periphery. InElements of Grammar, L. Haegeman (ed.), 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑5420‑8_7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7 [Google Scholar]
  145. Rizzi L
    1999 On the position ’Int(errogative)’ in the left periphery of the clause. Ms. Università di Siena. Published as (2001).
  146. Rizzi, L
    2001 On the position “Int (errogative)” in the left periphery of the clause. Current Studies in Italian Syntax14: 267-296.
     [Google Scholar]
  147. 2007 On some properties of criterial freezing. InCISCL Working Papers, Vol. 1, V. Moscati (ed.). Siena: University Of Siena.
     [Google Scholar]
  148. 2013 Topic, focus, and the cartography of the left periphery. InThe Bloomsbury Companion to Syntax, S. Luraghi & C. Parodi (eds). London: Bloomsbury.
     [Google Scholar]
  149. Roberts, I
    2011 Head movement and the Minimalist Program. InOxford Handbook of Minimalism, C. Boeckx (ed.). Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199549368.013.0009
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199549368.013.0009 [Google Scholar]
  150. Rooth, M
    1992 A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics1: 75-116. doi: 10.1007/BF02342617
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02342617 [Google Scholar]
  151. 1996 Focus. InThe Handbook Of Contemporary Semantic Theory, S. Lappin (ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  152. Ross, J.R
    1967 Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  153. Sabel, J
    2000 Partial Wh-movement and the typology of Wh-questions. InWh-Scope Marking [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistis Today 37], U. Lutz , G. Müller & A. von Stechow (eds), 409-446. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.37.17sab
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.37.17sab [Google Scholar]
  154. 2002 Wh-questions and extraction asymmetries in Malagasy. InProceedings Of The 8th Conference Of The Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA VIII) [MIT Working Papers In Linguistics 44], A. Rackowski & N. Richards (eds). Cambridge MA: MITWPL.
     [Google Scholar]
  155. 2003 Malagasy as an optional wh-fronting language. InMultiple Wh-Fronting [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 64], C. Boeckx & K.K. Grohmann (eds), 229-254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.64.13sab
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.64.13sab [Google Scholar]
  156. Sabel, J. & Saito, M
    2005 The Free Word Order Phenomenon: Its Syntactic Sources and Diversity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  157. Saito, M
    1989 Scrambling as semantically vacuous A′-movement. InAlternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, M. Baltin & A. Kroch (eds). Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  158. Sasse, H.-J
    1987 The thetic-categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics25: 511-580. doi: 10.1515/ling.1987.25.3.511
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.3.511 [Google Scholar]
  159. Shimoyama, J
    2006 Indeterminate phrase quantification in Japanese. Natural Language Semantics14(2): 139–173. doi: 10.1007/s11050‑006‑0001‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-006-0001-5 [Google Scholar]
  160. Simpson, A. & Wu, Z
    2002 Agreement, shells and focus. Language78(2): 287-313. doi: 10.1353/lan.2002.0058
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2002.0058 [Google Scholar]
  161. Szabolcsi, A
    1981 The semantics of topic-focus articulation. InFormal Methods in the Study of Language, J.A.G. Groenendijk , T.M.V. Janssen & M.B.J. Stokhof (eds). Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.
     [Google Scholar]
  162. Takahashi, D
    1997 Move F and null operator movement. Linguistic Review14: 181–196. doi: 10.1515/tlir.1997.14.2.181
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1997.14.2.181 [Google Scholar]
  163. Tirumalesh, K.V
    1996 Topic and focus in Kannada: Implications for word order. South Asian Language Review6: 25-48.
     [Google Scholar]
  164. Travis, L
    1984 Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. PhD dissertation, MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  165. Tsai, W.-T. D
    1994 On Economizing the Theory of A’-Dependencies. PhD dissertation, MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  166. 2008 Left periphery and how-why alternations. Journal of East Asian Linguistics17: 83-115. doi: 10.1007/s10831‑008‑9021‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-008-9021-0 [Google Scholar]
  167. Watanabe, A
    1992 Subjacency and S-structure movement of Wh-in-situ. Journal of East Asian Linguistics1: 255-291. doi: 10.1007/BF00130554
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00130554 [Google Scholar]
  168. Wexler, K. & Cullicover, P
    1980 Formal Principles of Language Acquisition. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  169. Wiltschko, M
    2009 What’s in a determiner and how did it get there?InDeterminers: Universals and Variation, , J. Ghomeshi , I. Paul & M. Wiltschko (eds), 25–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.147.01wil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.147.01wil [Google Scholar]
  170. Zwart, C. J.-W
    1993 Verb Movement and Complementizer Agreement [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  171. Zimmermann, M
    2008 Contrastive focus and emphasis. Acta Linguistica Hungarica55(3–4), 347–360. doi: 10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3‑4.9
     https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.9 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/books/9789027268143
Loading

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027268143
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027268143
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027268143
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error