A top-down analysis for reconstruction

Lingua

Volumn 116, Issue 11, 2006, Pages 1888-1914

  Guilliot, Nicolas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE NANTES   (France)

Author keywords

Reconstruction; Relativization; Resumption; Top down derivation

Indexed keywords

EID: 33748492092     PISSN: 00243841     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2004.10.002     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Aoun J., Choueiri L., and Hornstein N. Resumption, movement, and derivational economy. Linguistic Inquiry 32 (2001) 371-403
2. Bergeton, U., 2004. The independence of binding and intensification. Ph.D. Thesis, USC. Available at http://www-scf.usc.edu/∼bergeton/.
3. Bianchi, V., 1995. Consequences of antisymmetry for the syntax of headed relative clauses. Doctoral thesis, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa.
4. Büring, D., 2005. Binding Theory. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
5. Chomsky N. The Minimalist Program (1995), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
6. Fox D. Economy and the Semantic Interpretation (2000), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
7. Grodzinsky Y., and Reinhart T. The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry 24 (1993) 69-101
8. Heim, I., 1993. Anaphora and semantic interpretation: a reinterpretation of Reinhart's approach. SFS-Report-07-03, Universität Tübingen.
9. Heycock C. Asymmetries in reconstruction. Linguistic Inquiry 26 (1995) 547-570
10. Jouitteau, M., 2005. La Syntaxe Comparée du Breton. Doctoral thesis, University of Nantes. Available at http://jouitteau.free.fr/#research.
11. Kayne R. The Antisymmetry of Syntax (1994), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
12. Lebeaux D. Relative clauses, licensing, and the nature of the derivation. Proceedings of NELS 20. University of MA, Amherst (1990) 318-332
13. Mc Closkey J. Resumption, successive cyclicity, and the locality of operations. In: Epstein, and Seely (Eds). Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program (2002), Blackwell publishing 184-226
14. Phillips, C., 1996. Order and structure. Doctoral thesis, MIT Press, MA.
15. Pollard C., and Sag I. Anaphors in english and the scope of binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23 (1992) 261-303
16. Reinhart T. Interface Strategies (1995), OTS, Universiteit, Utrecht
17. Reinhart, T., 1997. Strategies of anaphora resolution. OTS working papers.
18. Reinhart T., and Reuland E. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24 (1993) 657-720
19. Richards, N., 1999. Dependency formation and directionality of tree construction. MITWPL 34: Papers on Morphology and Syntax. Cambridge, MA
20. Rouveret A. Syntaxe du Gallois (1994), CNRS ed, Paris
21. Rouveret, A., 2002. How are resumptive pronouns linked to the periphery? Unpublished manuscript, University of Paris VII.
22. Sauerland, U., 1998. The meaning of Chains. Doctoral thesis. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
23. Schachter P. Focus and relativization. Language 49 (1973) 19-46
24. Schlenker P. Semantic reinterpretation of binding theory. Proceedings of the Amsterdam Colloquium (2003)
25. Shlonsky U. Resumptive pronouns as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 23 (1992) 443-468
26. Vergnaud, J.-R., 1974. French relative clauses. Doctoral thesis, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
27. Willis D. On the distribution of resumptive pronouns and wh-trace in Welsh. Journal of Linguistics 36 (2000) 531-573