The structural deficiency of verbal pro-forms

Linguistic Inquiry

Volumn 38, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 539-547

  Haddican, Bill ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548210814     PISSN: 00243892     EISSN: 00243892     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.539     Document Type: Review

References (16)

1. Baker, C. L. 1984. Two observations on British English do. Linguistic Inquiry 15:155-157.
2. Baltin, Mark. 2004. The position of adverbials. Ms., New York University.
3. Baltin, Mark. 2005. The non-unity of VP-preposing. Ms., New York University. To appear in Language.
4. Baltin, Mark. 2006. Deletion versus pro-forms: A false dichotomy? Ms., New York University.
5. Bouton, Lawrence. 1970. Do so: Do + adverb. In Studies presented to Robert B. Lees by his students, ed. by Jerrold Sadock and Anthony Vanek, 17-38. Edmonton: Linguistic Research.
6. Cardinaletti, Anna, and Michal Starke. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In Clitics in the languages of Europe, ed. by Henk van Riemsdijk, 145-233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
7. Chalcraft, Faye. 2006. Do-doubling in West Yorkshire English. Handout from the conference "Syntactic Doubling in European Dialects," Amsterdam.
8. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. by Michael Kenstowicz, 1-52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
9. Déchaine, Rose-Marie, and Martina Wiltschko. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33:409-442.
10. Hale, Kenneth, and Samuel Jay Keyser. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The view from Building 20, ed. by Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 53-109. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
11. Horvath, Julia, and Tal Siloni. 2003. Against the little-v hypothesis. In Proceedings of Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics 19, ed. by Yehuda N. Falk. Available at atar.mscc.huji.ac.il/~english/IATL.
12. Johnson, Kyle. 2001. What VP-ellipsis can do, and what it can't, but not why. In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, ed. by Mark Baltin and Chris Collins, 439-479. Oxford: Blackwell.
13. Laka, Itziar. 1993. Unergatives that assign ergative, unaccusatives that assign accusative. In Papers on Case and agreement I, ed. by Jonathan David Bobaljik and Colin Phillips, 149-172. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MITWPL.
14. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20:365-424.
15. Ross, John R. 1970. Act. In Semantics of natural language, ed. by Donald Davidson and Gilbert Harman, 70-126. Dordrecht: Reidel.
16. Stroik, Thomas. 2001. On the Light Verb Hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 32:362-369.