oa Raising to object

References

1. Akmajian, A. & F. Heny
   (1975) An Introduction to the Principles of Transformational Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Bach, E.
   (1974) Syntactic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Bach, E.
   (1979) Control in Montague Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry10(4). 515–531.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Bach, E.
   (1981) Discontinuous Constituents in Generalized Categorial Grammars. NELS111, Article 2. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/nels/vol11/iss1/2
   [Google Scholar]
5. Berinstein, A.
   (1984) Absolutive extractions: evidence for clause-internal multiattachment in K’ekchi. InC. Rosen & L. Zaring (eds.) Cornell University working papers in linguistics51. 1–65
   [Google Scholar]
6. Börjars, K., R. Nordlinger & L. Sadler
   (2019) Lexical Functional Grammar. Cambridge: CUP.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Castillo, J. & J. Uriagereka
   (2002) A note on successive cyclicity. InDerivations (pp. 136–146). London: Routledge.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Chomsky, N.
   (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Chomsky, N.
   (1977 [1973]) Conditions on transformations. InEssays on Form and Interpretation (pp. 81–160). New York: North Holland.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Chomsky, N.
    (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Chomsky, N.
    (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Chomsky, N.
    (2000) Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. InR. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (eds.) Step by Step – Essays in Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–155). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Chomsky, N.
    (2008) On Phases. InR. Freidin, C. Otero & M. L. Zubizarreta (eds.) Foundational issues in linguistic theory (pp. 133–166). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Chomsky, N.
    (2021) Minimalism: where we are now, and where we can hope to go. Gengo Kenkyu1601. 1–41.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Chomsky, N. & H. Lasnik
    (1995) The theory of principles and parameters. InN. Chomsky (ed.) The Minimalist Program (pp. 13–128). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Chomsky, N., T. D. Seely, R. Berwick, S. Fong, M. A. C. Huybregts, H. Kitahara, A. McInnerney & Y. Sugimoto
    (2023) Merge and the Strong Minimalist Thesis. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Collins, C.
    (2023) Principles of argument structure. Ms. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/006409
    [Google Scholar]
18. Dalrymple, M., J. Lowe & L. Mycock
    (2019) The Oxford reference guide to Lexical Functional Grammar. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Davies, W. & S. Dubinsky
    (2004) The grammar of raising and control. London: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Dowty, D.
    (1982) Grammatical relations and Montague grammar. InP. Jacobson & G. Pullum (eds.) The nature of syntactic representation (pp. 79–130). Dordrecht: Reidel.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Dowty, D.
    (2003) The dual analysis of adjuncts/complements in Categorial Grammar. InE. Lang, C. Maienborn & C. Fabricius-Hansen (eds.) Modifying adjuncts (pp. 33–66). Berlin: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Dowty, D., R. Wall & S. Peters
    (1981) Introduction to Montague semantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Epstein, S., H. Kitahara & T. D. Seely
    (2022) A Minimalist theory of Simplest Merge. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Frank, R.
    (2002) Phrase Structure Composition and Syntactic Dependencies. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Gorn, S.
    (1967) Handling the growth by definition of mechanical languages. Proceedings of the April 18–20, 1967, spring joint computer conference. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. 213–224.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Gross, J. & J. Yellen
    (2014) Fundamentals of graph theory. InJ. Gross, J. Yellen & P. Zhang (eds.) Handbook of graph theory [2nd Edition] (pp. 2–20). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Heim, I. & A. Kratzer
    (1998) Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Huck, G.
    (1984) Discontinuity and word order in Categorial Grammar. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago.
29. Huck, G.
    (1988) Phrasal verbs and postponement. InR. Oehrle, E. Bach & D. Wheeler (eds.) Categorial Grammars and natural language structures (pp. 249–264). Dordrecht: Reidel.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Johnson, D. & P. Postal
    (1980) Arc Pair Grammar. Princeton: Princeton University Press
    [Google Scholar]
31. Jespersen, O.
    (1937) Analytic Syntax. London: Allen & Unwin.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Kallmeyer, L. & A. Joshi
    (2003) Factoring Predicate Argument and Scope Semantics: Underspecified Semantics with LTAG. Research on Language and Computation1(1). 3–58.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Karttunen, L. & M. Kay
    (1985) Structure sharing with binary trees. Proceedings of the 23rd annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago. 133–136.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Koizumi, M.
    (1993) Object agreement phrases and the split VP hypothesis. MIT working papers in linguistics181. 99–148.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Krivochen, D.
    (2023a) The search for minimal search. Biolinguistics171. e9793. 10.5964/bioling.9793
    https://doi.org/10.5964/bioling.9793 [Google Scholar]
36. Krivochen, D.
    (2023b) Towards a theory of syntactic workspaces. The Linguistic Review40(2). 311–360. 10.1515/tlr‑2023‑2004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2023-2004 [Google Scholar]
37. Krivochen, D.
    (2023c) Syntax on the Edge. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Kroch, A.
    (2001) Asymmetries in long-distance extraction in a Tree-Adjoining Grammar. Ms. Available online athttps://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kroch/online.html
    [Google Scholar]
39. Kroch, A. & A. Joshi
    (1985) The linguistic relevance of Tree Adjoining Grammar. Ms. babel.ling.upenn.edu/papers/faculty/tony_kroch/papers/relevance3.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
40. Larson, R.
    (1988) On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry19(3). 335–391.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Larson, R.
    (2014) On shell structure. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Lasnik, H.
    (2019) A reconsideration of ECM. Ms. https://terpconnect.umd.edu/~lasnik/Handouts-Conf%20and%20colloq/2019.Reconsideration%20of%20ECM.SCNU.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
43. Lasnik, H. & M. Saito
    (1991) On the subject of infinitives. CLS271. 324–343.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Manzini, R. & L. Savoia
    (2011) Grammatical categories. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
45. McCawley, J.
    (1982) Parentheticals and Discontinuous Constituent Structure. Linguistic Inquiry13(1). 91–106.
    [Google Scholar]
46. McKinney-Bock, K. & J-R Vergnaud
    (2014) Grafts and beyond. InK. McKinney-Bock & M. L. Zubizarreta (eds.) Primitive elements of grammatical theory (pp. 207–236). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Neeleman, A., J. Philip, M. Tanaka & H. van de Koot
    (2023) Subordination and binary branching. Syntax26(1).41–84. 10.1111/synt.12244
    https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12244 [Google Scholar]
48. Nunes, J.
    (2004) Linearization of chains and sidewards movement. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Perlmutter, D.
    (1978) Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society381. 157–189.
    [Google Scholar]
50. Perlmutter, D.
    (1980) Relational grammar. InE. Moravcsik & J. Wirth (eds.) Syntax and semantics131 (pp. 195–229). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
51. Pesetsky, D.
    (1995) Zero Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
52. Pesetsky, D.
    (2013) Russian Case morphology and the syntactic categories. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
53. Pollard, C. & I. Sag
    (1994) Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
54. Postal, P.
    (1974) On Raising. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
55. Postal, P.
    (2010) Edge-based clausal syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
56. Rosenbaum, P.
    (1967) The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
57. Rouveret, A.
    (2018) Aspects of grammatical architecture. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
58. Runner, J.
    (2006) Lingering challenges to the raising-to-object and object control constructions. Syntax9(2). 193–213.
    [Google Scholar]
59. Sarkar, A. & A. Joshi
    (1997) Coordination in Tree Adjoining Grammars: Formalization and Implementation. 10.3115/993268.993275
    https://doi.org/10.3115/993268.993275 [Google Scholar]
60. Schmerling, S. F.
    (1983) A new theory of English auxiliaries. InF. Heny & B. Richards (eds.) Linguistic categories: auxiliaries and related puzzles Vol. 2 (pp. 1–53). Dordrecht: Reidel.
    [Google Scholar]
61. Schmerling, S. F.
    (2018) Sound and Grammar. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
62. Stabler, E.
    (2011) Computational perspectives on minimalism. InC. Boeckx (ed.) Oxford handbook of minimalism (pp. 617–641). Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
63. Stepanov, A.
    (2007) The end of the CED? Minimalism and extraction domains. Syntax10(1). 80–126.
    [Google Scholar]
64. Williams, E.
    (2011) Introduction. InRegimes of derivation in syntax and morphology (pp. 1–9). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
65. Zwicky, A. & Izard, S.
    (1963) Some aspects of tree theory. Working Paper W-6674, The Mitre Corporation, Bedford, Mass. https://web.stanford.edu/~zwicky/some-aspects-of-tree-theory.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
66. Zyman, E.
    (2023) On the definition of Merge. Syntax. Forthcoming. Available online athttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1KWyZrOhrf-exnZpEqyYrm0UYdAqauZ6R&authuser=0
    [Google Scholar]