Minimalist syntax: Exploring the structure of english

Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English

Volumn , Issue , 2004, Pages 1-512

  Radford, Andrew ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84923998140     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511811319     Document Type: Book

References (350)

1. Abney, S. P. (1987) ‘The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect’, PhD diss., MIT.
2. Ackema, P. (2001) ‘On the relation between V-to-I and the structure of the inflectional paradigm’, The Linguistic Review 18: 233–63.
3. Acquaviva, P. (2002) ‘The morphological dimension of polarity licensing’, Linguistics 40: 925–59.
4. Adger, D. (2003) Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
5. Agbayani, B. (2000) ‘Wh-subjects in English and the Vacuous Movement Hypothesis’, Linguistic Inquiry 31: 703–13.
6. Aissen, J. (1996) ‘Pied-piping, abstract agreement and functional projections in Tzotzil’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 447–91.
7. Akmajian, A. and Heny, F. (1975) An Introduction to the Principles of Transformational Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
8. Alexiadou, A. and Anagnostopoulou, E. (2001) ‘The subject-in-situ generalization and the role of case in driving computations’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 193–231.
9. Alexopoulou, T. and Kolliakou, D. (2002) ‘On Linkhood, Topicalisation and Clitic Left Dislocation’, Journal of Linguistics 38: 193–245.
10. Antony, L. and Hornstein, N. (2002) Chomsky and His Critics, Blackwell, Oxford.
11. Aronoff, M. (1976) Word Formation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
12. Aronoff, M. and Fuhrhop, N. (2002) ‘Restricting suffix combinations in German and English: closing suffixes and the monosuffix constraint’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 451–90.
13. Atkinson, M. (2003) Unpublished course handouts, University of Essex.
14. Authier, J.-M. (1991) ‘V-governed expletives, case theory and the projection principle’, Linguistic Inquiry 22: 721–40.
15. Baker, C. L. (1970) ‘Notes on the description of English questions: the role of an abstract question morpheme’, Foundations of Language 6: 197–219.
16. Baker, M. (1988) Incorporation, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
17. Baltin, M. (1995) ‘Floating quantifiers, PRO and predication’, Linguistic Inquiry 26: 199–248.
18. Baltin, M. (2002) ‘Movement to the higher V is remnant movement’, Linguistic Inquiry 33: 653–9.
19. Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.) (2001) The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, Blackwell, Oxford.
20. Barss, A. (2001) ‘Syntactic reconstruction effects’, in Baltin and Collins (eds.), pp. 670 96.
21. Basilico, D. (2003) ‘The topic of small clauses’, Linguistic Inquiry 34: 1–35.
22. Bejar, S. and Massam, D. (1999) ‘Multiple case checking’, Syntax 2: 65–79.
23. Belletti, A. (1988) ‘The case of unaccusatives’, Linguistic Inquiry 19: 1–34.
24. Belletti, A. and Rizzi, L. (1988) ‘Psych-verbs and θ-theory’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6: 291–352.
25. Bernstein, J. B. (2001) ‘The DP hypothesis: identifying clausal properties in the nominal domain’, in Baltin and Collins (eds.) pp. 536–61.
26. Bobaljik, J. (1995) ‘Morphosyntax: the Syntax of Verbal Inflection’, PhD diss., MIT.
27. Bobaljik, J. D. (2000) ‘The rich agreement hypothesis in review’, draft manuscript, McGill University (http://www.msgill.ca/Linguistics/faculty/bobaljik/).
28. Bobaljik, J. (2002) ‘A-chains at the PF-interface: copies and “covert” movement’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 197–267.
29. Boeckx, C. (2000) ‘A note on Contraction’, Linguistic Inquiry 31: 357–66.
30. Boeckx, C. (2001) ‘Scope reconstruction and A-movement’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 503–48.
31. Boeckx, C. and Stjepanovic, S. (2001) ‘Head-ing towards PF’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 345–55.
32. Borsley, R. (2002) ‘Wh-phrases in Minimalism’, unpublished paper, University of Essex.
33. Bǒskovic, Ž. (1997) ‘On certain violations of the superiority condition, AgrO and economy of derivation’, Journal of Linguistics 33: 227–54.
34. Bǒskovic, Ž. (2001) On the Nature of the Syntax-Phonology Interface: Cliticization and Related Phenomena, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
35. Bǒskovic, Ž. (2002a) ‘On multiple wh-fronting’, Linguistic Inquiry 33: 351–83.
36. Bǒskovic, Ž. (2002b) ‘A-Movement and the EPP’, Syntax 5: 167–218.
37. Bowerman, M. (1988) ‘The “no negative evidence” problem: how do children avoid an overly general grammar?’, in J. Hawkins (ed.), Explaining Language Universals, Blackwell, Oxford.
38. Bowers, J. (1993) ‘The syntax of predication’, Linguistic Inquiry 24: 591–656.
39. Bowers, J. (2002) ‘Transitivity’, Linguistic Inquiry 33: 183–224.
40. Braine, M. D. S. (1971) ‘Three suggestions regarding grammatical analyses of children’s language’, in C. A. Ferguson and D. I. Slobin (eds.), Studies of Child Language Development, Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 421–9.
41. Branigan, P. (1992) ‘Subjects and Complementisers’, PhD diss., MIT.
42. Branigan, P. and MacKenzie, M. (2002) ‘Altruism, A-movement and object agreement in Innuaimûn’, Linguistic Inquiry 33: 385–407.
43. Brody, M. (1995) A Radically Minimalist Theory, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
44. Brown, K. (1991) ‘Double modals in Hawick Scots’, in P. Trudgill and J. K. Chambers (eds.), Dialects of English, Longman, London, pp. 74–103.
45. Brown R., Cazden, C. and Bellugi, U. (1968) ‘The child’s grammar from I to III’, in J. P. Hill (ed.), Minnesota Symposium on Child Development, vol. 2, pp. 28–73.
46. Brown, R. and Hanlon, C. (1970) ‘Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech’, in J. R. Hayes (ed.), Cognition and the Development of Language, Wiley, New York, pp. 11–53.
47. Burton, S. and Grimshaw, J. (1992) ‘Coordination and VP-internal subjects’, Linguistic Inquiry 23: 305–13.
48. Burzio, L. (1986) Italian Syntax, Reidel, Dordrecht.
49. Carnie, A. (2000) ‘On the definition of X0 and XP’, Syntax 3: 59–106.
50. Carrier, J. and Randall, J. H. (1992) ‘The argument structure and syntactic structure of resultatives’, Linguistic Inquiry 23: 173–234.
51. Carstens, V. (2000) ‘Concord in Minimalist Theory’, Linguistic Inquiry 31: 319–55.
52. Carstens, V. (2001) ‘Multiple agreement and case deletion: against (in)completeness’, Syntax 4: 147–63.
53. Cheng, L. (1997) On the Typology of Wh-Questions, Garland, New York.
54. Cheng, L. and Rooryck, J. (2000) ‘Licensing Wh-in-situ’, Syntax 3: 1–19.
55. Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
56. Chomsky, N. (1968) Interview with S. Hamshire in The Listener, May 1968.
57. Chomsky, N. (1970) ‘Remarks on nominalisation’, in R. A. Jacobs and P. S. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Ginn, Waltham, Mass, pp. 184–221.
58. Chomsky, N. (1972) Language and Mind (enlarged edition), Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York.
59. Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.
60. Chomsky, N. (1982) Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
61. Chomsky, N. (1986a) Knowledge of Language: its Nature, Origin and Use, Praeger, New York.
62. Chomsky, N. (1986b) Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
63. Chomsky, N. (1993) ‘A minimalist program for linguistic theory’, in Hale and Keyser (eds.), pp. 1–52 (reprinted as chapter 3 of Chomsky 1995).
64. Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
65. Chomsky, N. (1998) Minimalist Inquiries: the Framework, MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, no. 15 (also published in R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds.) (2000) Step by Step: Essays on Minimalism in Honor of Howard Lasnik, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 89–155)
66. Chomsky, N. (1999) Derivation by Phase, MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, no. 18 (also published in M. Kenstowicz (ed.) (2001) Ken Hale: a Life in Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 1–52).
67. Chomsky, N. (2001) ‘Beyond Explanatory Adequacy’, unpublished manuscript, MIT.
68. Chomsky, N. (2002) On Nature and Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
69. Chomsky, N. and Lasnik, H. (1977) ‘Filters and Control’, Linguistic Inquiry 8: 425–504.
70. Chomsky, N. and Lasnik, H. (1995) ‘The theory of principles and parameters’, in Chomsky 1995, pp. 13–127.
71. Chung, S. (1994) ‘Wh-agreement and “Referentiality” in Chamorro’, Linguistic Inquiry 25: 1–45.
72. Chung, S. (1998) The Design of Agreement: Evidence from Chamorro, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
73. Cinque, G. (1994) ‘Evidence for partial N-movement in the Romance DP’, in G. Cinque, J. Koster, J.-Y. Pollock, L. Rizzi and R. Zanuttini (eds.), Towards Universal Grammar: Studies in Honor of Richard Kayne, Georgetown University Press, Washington DC, pp. 85–110.
74. Cinque, G. (1999) Adverbs and Functional Heads, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
75. Citko, B. (2002) ‘(Anti)reconstruction effects in free relatives: a new argument against the Comp account’, Linguistic Inquiry 33: 507–11.
76. Cole, P. (1982) Imbabura Quechua, North-Holland, The Hague.
77. Cole, P. and Hermon, G. (2000) ‘Partial wh-movement: evidence from Malay’, in Lutz, M¨uller and von Stechow (eds.), pp. 101–30.
78. Collins, C. (1997) Local Economy, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
79. Collins, C. and Branigan, P. (1997) ‘Quotative Inversion’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 1–41.
80. Contreras, H. (1986) ‘Spanish bare NPs and the ECP’, in I. Bordelois, H. Contreras and K. Zagona (eds.), Generative Studies in Spanish Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 25–49.
81. Contreras, J. (1987) ‘Small clauses in Spanish and English’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5: 225–44.
82. Cormack, A. and Smith, N. (1999) ‘Where is a sign merged?’, Glot International 4, 6: 21.
83. Cormack, A. and Smith, N. (2000a) ‘Head Movement and negation in English’, Transactions of the Philological Society 98: 49–85.
84. Cormack, A. and Smith, N. (2000b) ‘Fronting: the Syntax and Pragmatics of “Focus” and “Topic”’, UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 20: 387–417.
85. Cornilescu, A. (2001) ‘Romanian nominalizations: case and aspectual structure’, Journal of Linguistics 37: 467–501.
86. Costa, J. (2001) ‘Postverbal subjects and agreement in unaccusative contexts in European Portuguese’, The Linguistic Review 18: 1–17.
87. Crain, S. and Pietroski, P. (2002) ‘Why language acquisition is a snap’, The Linguistic Review 19: 163–83.
88. Culicover, P. (1991) ‘Topicalization, inversion and complementiser in English’, in D. Delfitto, M. Everaert, A. Evers and F. Stuurman (eds.), OTS Working Papers: Going Romance and Beyond, University of Utrecht, pp. 1–45.
89. Culicover, P. and Jackendoff, R. (2001) ‘Control is not movement’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 493–512.
90. Culicover, P. and Levine, R. D. (2001) ‘Stylistic Inversion in English: a reconsideration’, Natural Language and Linguisitc Theory 19: 283–310.
91. Curtiss, S. (1977) Genie: a Psycholinguistic Study of a Modern Day ‘Wild Child’, Academic Press, London.
92. Davies, W. and Dubinsky, S. (2003) ‘On extraction from NPs’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 1–37.
93. Dayal, V. (2002) ‘Single-pair versus multiple-pair answers: wh-in-situ and scope’, Linguistic Inquiry 33: 512–20.
94. Dechaine, R.-M. and Wiltschko, M. (2002) ‘Decomposing pronouns’, Linguistic Inquiry 33: 409–42.
95. den Dikken, M. (2001) ‘Pluringulars, pronouns and quirky agreement’, The Linguistic Review 18: 19–41.
96. den Dikken, M. and Giannakidou, A. (2002) ‘From hell to polarity: “Aggressively non-Dlinked” wh-phrases as polarity items’, Linguistic Inquiry 33: 31–61.
97. Denham, K. (2000) ‘Optional wh-movement in Babine-Witsuwit’en’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 199–251.
98. Dixon, R. M. W. (2000) ‘Categories of the Noun Phrase in Jarawara’, Journal of Linguistics 36: 487–510.
99. Drubig, H. N. (2003) ‘Toward a typology of focus and focus constructions’, Linguistics 41: 1–50.
100. Dukes, M. (2000) ‘Agreement in Chamorro’, Journal of Linguistics 36: 575–88.
101. du Plessis, H. (1977) ‘Wh-movement in Afrikaans’, Linguistic Inquiry 8: 211–22.
102. Embick, D. and Noyer, R. (2001) ‘Movement operations after Syntax’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 555–95.
103. Epstein, S. and Seeley, D. (1999) ‘Specifying the GF “subject”, eliminating A-chains and the EPP with a derivational model’, ms. University of Michigan.
104. Ernst, T. (1991) ‘On the scope principle’, Linguistic Inquiry 22: 750–6.
105. Fabb, N. (1988) ‘English suffixation is constrained only by selectional restrictions’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 527–39.
106. Fanselow, G. and Mahajan, A. (2000) ‘Towards a minimalist theory of wh-expletives, whcopying and successive cyclicity’, in Lutz, M¨uller and von Stechow (eds.), pp. 195–230.
107. Fasold, R. (1980) ‘The relation between black and white speech in the south’, ms., School of Languages and Linguistics, Georgetown University, Washington DC.
108. Felser, C. (1999a) Verbal Complement Clauses: a Minimalist Study of Direct Perception Constructions, Benjamins, Amsterdam.
109. Felser, C. (1999b) ‘Perception and control: A Minimalist analysis of English direct perception complements’, Journal of Linguistics 34: 351–85.
110. Felser, C. (2001) ‘Wh-copying, phases and successive cyclicity’, draft ms, University of Essex.
111. Fillmore, C. J. (1968) ‘The case for case’, in E. Bach and R. T. Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 1–88.
112. Fillmore, C. J. (1972) ‘Subjects, speakers and roles’, in D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language, Reidel, Dordrecht.
113. Fitzpatrick, J. M. (2002) ‘On Minimalist approaches to the locality of movement’, Linguistic Inquiry 33: 443–63.
114. Fodor, J. D. and Crowther, C. (2002) ‘Understanding stimulus poverty arguments’, The Linguistic Review 19: 105–45.
115. Fox, D. (2000) Economy and Semantic Interpretation, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
116. Frampton, J. and Gutmann, S. (1999) ‘Cyclic computation, a computationally efficient minimalist syntax’, Syntax 2: 1–27.
117. Frank, R. and Vijay-Shanker, K. (2001) ‘Primitive c-command’, Syntax 4: 164–204.
118. Freidin, R. and Vergnaud, J. R. (2001) ‘Exquisite connections: some remarks on the evolution of linguistic theory’, Lingua 111: 639–66.
119. Fu, J., Roeper, T. and Borer, H. (2001) ‘TheVPwithin process nominals: evidence from adverbs and the VP anaphor do so’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 549–82.
120. Goodall, G. (1999) ‘Accusative case in passives’, Linguistics 37: 1–12.
121. Green, L. (1998) ‘Semantic and syntactic patterns in African American English’, ms., University of Massachusetts.
122. Grewendorf, G. (2001) ‘Multiple wh-fronting’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 87–122.
123. Grimshaw, J. (1993) ‘Minimal Projection, Heads, and Optimality’, draft ms., Rutgers University.
124. Groat, E. and O’Neil, J. (1996) ‘Spell-out at the LF interface’, in W. Abraham, S. D. Epstein, H. Thr´ainsson and C. J.-W. Zwart (eds.), Minimal Ideas, Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 113–39.
125. Gruber, J. S. (1965) ‘Studies in Lexical Relations’, PhD diss., MIT.
126. Gruber, J. S. (1976) Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
127. Guasti, M. T. (2002) Language Acquisition: the Growth of Grammar, Bradford Books, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
128. Guasti, M. T., Thornton, R. and Wexler, K. (1995) ‘Negation in children’s questions: the case of English’, in B. MacLaughlin and S. McEwen (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Cascadilla Press, Somerville, Mass, pp. 228–39.
129. Guilfoyle, E. (1983) ‘Habitual aspect in Hiberno-English’, McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 1: 22–32.
130. Guilfoyle, E., Hung, H. and Travis, L. (1992) ‘Spec of IP and spec of VP: two subjects in Austronesian languages’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 375–414.
131. Haegeman, L. (1992) Theory and Description in Generative Syntax: a Case Study of West Flemish, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
132. Haegeman, L. (1994, 2nd edition) Introduction to Government and Binding Theory, Blackwell, Oxford.
133. Haegeman, L. (1995) The Syntax of Negation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
134. Haegeman, L. (2000) ‘Inversion, non-adjacent inversion and adjuncts in CP’, Transactions of the Philological Society 98: 121–60.
135. Hagstrom, P. A. (1998) ‘Decomposing Questions’, PhD diss, MIT.
136. Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (1991) On the Syntax of Argument Structure, Lexicon ProjectWorking Papers, MIT, Center for Cognitive Science, Cambridge, Mass.
137. Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (1993a) ‘On argument structure and the lexical expression of semantic relations’, in Hale and Keyser (eds.), pp. 53–109.
138. Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (1993b) (eds.) The View from Building 20, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
139. Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (1994) ‘Constraints on argument structure’, in B. Lust, M. Su˜ner and J. Whitman (eds.), Heads, Projections and Learnability, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ vol. 1, pp. 53–71.
140. Halle, M. and Marantz, A. (1993) ‘Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection’, in Hale and Keyser (eds.), pp. 111–76.
141. Han, C.-H. (2001) ‘Force, negation and imperatives’, The Linguistic Review, 18: 289-325.
142. Harris, J. (1986) ‘Expanding the superstrate: habitual aspect markers in Atlantic Englishes’, English World-Wide 7: 171–99.
143. Hawkins, J. A. (2001) ‘Why are categories adjacent?’, Journal of Linguistics 37: 1–34.
144. Henry, A. (1995) Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect Variation and Parameter- Setting, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
145. Hiemstra, I. (1986) ‘Some aspects of wh-questions in Frisian’, North-Western European Language Evolution (NOWELE) 8: 97–110.
146. Holmberg, A. (2000) ‘Am I unscientific? A reply to Lappin, Levine and Johnson’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 837–42.
147. Hornstein, N. (1995) Logical Form: from GB to Minimalism, Blackwell, Oxford.
148. Hornstein, N. (2000) ‘On A-chains: a reply to Brody’, Syntax 3: 129–43.
149. Hornstein, N. and Lightfoot, D. (eds.) (1994) Verb Movement, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
150. Huang, C.-T. J. (1982) ‘Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar’, PhD diss., MIT.
151. Huang, C.-T. J. (1993) ‘Reconstruction and the structure of VP: some theoretical consequences’, Linguistic Inquiry 24: 103–38.
152. Hurford, J. (1991) ‘The evolution of the critical period for language acquisition’, Cognition 40: 159–201.
153. Hyams, N. (1986) Language Acquisition and the Theory of Parameters, Reidel, Dordrecht.
154. Hyams, N. (1992) ‘A reanalysis of null subjects in child language’, in J. Weissenborn, H. Goodluck and T. Roeper (eds.), Theoretical Issues in Language Acquisition, Erlbaum, London, pp. 249–67.
155. Ingham, R. (2000) ‘Negation and OV order in Late Middle English’, Journal of Linguistics 36: 13–38.
156. Jackendoff, R. S. (1972) Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
157. Jaeggli, O. and Safir, K. (1989) The Null Subject Parameter, Kluwer, Dordrecht. Johnson, K. (1991) ‘Object positions’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 577-636.
158. Johnson, K. (2002) ‘Restoring exotic co-ordinations to normalcy’, Linguistic Inquiry 33: 97–156.
159. Jones, M. A. (1994) Sardinian Syntax, Routledge, London.
160. Julien, M. (2001) ‘The syntax of complex tenses’, The Linguistic Review 18: 125–67.
161. Kathol, A. (2001) ‘Positional effects in a monostratal grammar of German’, Journal of Linguistics 37: 35–66.
162. Kayne, R. S. (1984a) Connectedness and Binary Branching, Foris, Dordrecht.
163. Kayne, R. S. (1984b) ‘Principles of particle constructions’, in J. Gu´eron et al. (eds.) Grammatical Representation, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 101–40.
164. Kayne, R. S. (1989) ‘Facets of Romance past participle agreement’, in P. Beninc`a (ed.), Dialect Variation and the Theory of Grammar, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 85–103.
165. Kayne, R. S. (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
166. Kennedy, C. (2002) ‘Comparative deletion and optimality in syntax’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 553–621.
167. Kennedy, C. and Merchant, J. (2000) ‘Attributive comparative deletion’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 89–146.
168. Keyser, S. J. and Roeper, T. (1992) ‘Re: the abstract clitic hypothesis’, Linguistic Inquiry 23: 89–125.
169. Kimball, J. and Aissen, J. (1971) ‘I think, you think, he think’, Linguistic Inquiry 2: 241-6.
170. Kishimoto, H. (1992) ‘LF pied piping: evidence from Sinhala’, Gengo Kenkyu 102: 46–87.
171. Kishimoto, H. (2000) ‘Indefinite pronouns and overt N-raising’, Linguistic Inquiry 31: 557–66.
172. Kitagawa, Y. (1986) ‘Subjects in English and Japanese’, PhDdiss., University of Massachusetts.
173. Klima, E. S. (1964) ‘Negation in English’, in J. A. Fodor and J. J. Katz (eds.), The Structure of Language, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 246–323.
174. Koeneman, O. (2000) ‘The Flexible Nature of Verb Movement’, PhD diss., University of Utrecht.
175. Koizumi, M. (1993) ‘Object agreement phrases and the split VP hypothesis’, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 99–148.
176. Koizumi, M. (1995) ‘Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax’, PhD diss., MIT.
177. Koopman, H. and Sportiche, D. (1991) ‘The position of subjects’, Lingua 85: 211–58.
178. Kuroda, Y. (1988) ‘Whether we agree or not’, Lingvisticae Investigationes 12: 1–47.
179. Labov, W. (1969) ‘Contraction, deletion and inherent variability of the English copula’, Language 45: 715–62.
180. Landau, I. (1999) ‘Elements of Control’, PhD diss., MIT.
181. Landau, I. (2001) ‘Control and Extraposition: the case of Super-Equi’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 109–52.
182. Landau, I. (2002) ‘(Un)interpretable Neg in Comp’, Linguistic Inquiry 33: 465–92.
183. Lappin, S., Levine, R. D. and Johnson, D. E. (2000a) ‘Topic… comment: the structure of unscientific revolutions’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 665–71.
184. Lappin, S., Levine, R. D. and Johnson, D. E. (2000b) ‘The revolution confused: a response to our critics’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 873–90.
185. Lappin, S., Levine, R. D. and Johnson, D. E. (2001) ‘The revolution maximally confused’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 901–19.
186. Larson, R. (1988) ‘On the double object construction’, Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–91.
187. Larson, R. (1990) ‘Double objects revisited: reply to Jackendoff’, Linguistic Inquiry 21: 589–632.
188. Larson, R. (1991) ‘Promise and the theory of control’, Linguistic Inquiry 2: 103–39.
189. Lasnik, H. (1995) ‘Verbal Morphology: Syntactic Structures meets the Minimalist Program’, in H. Campos and P. Kempchinsky (eds.), Evolution and Revolution in Linguistic Theory, Georgetown University Press, Georgetown, pp. 251–75.
190. Lasnik, H. (1998) ‘Some reconstruction riddles’, in Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 5: 83–98, Penn Linguistics Circle, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
191. Lasnik, H. (1999) ‘Chains of arguments’, in S. D. Epstein and N. Hornstein (eds.), Working Minimalism, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 189–215.
192. Lasnik, H. (2000) Syntactic Structures Revisited: Contemporary Lectures on Classic Transformational Theory, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. (with M. Depiante and A. Stepanov)
193. Lasnik, H. (2001) ‘A note on the EPP’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 356–61.
194. Lasnik, H. and Saito, M. (1991) ‘On the subject of infinitives’, Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 27: 324–43, University of Chicago.
195. Lasnik, H. and Sobin, N. (2000) ‘The Who/Whom Puzzle: on the preservation of an archaic feature’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 343–71.
196. Lasnik, H. and Uriagereka, J. (2002) ‘On the poverty of the challenge’, The Linguistic Review 19: 147–50.
197. Lebeaux, D. (1991) ‘Relative clauses, licensing and the nature of derivation’, in S. Rothstein (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 25: Perspectives on Phrase Structure, Academic Press, New York, pp. 209–39.
198. Lebeaux, D. (1995) ‘Where does Binding Theory apply?’, University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 63–88.
199. Lechner, W. (2001) ‘Reduced and phrasal comparatives’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 683–735.
200. Legate, J. A. (2002) ‘Some interface properties of the phase’, unpublished paper, MIT.
201. Legate, J. A. and Yang, C. D. (2002) ‘Empirical re-assessment of stimulus poverty arguments’, The Linguistic Review 19: 151–62.
202. Lenneberg, E. (1967) Biological Foundations of Language, Wiley, New York.
203. Levin, B. and Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995) Unaccusativity at the Syntax-Lexical Semantic Interface, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
204. Longobardi, G. (1994) ‘Reference and proper names’, Linguistic Inquiry 25: 609–66.
205. Longobardi, G. (1996) ‘The syntax of N-raising: a minimalist theory’, OTS Working Papers no. 5, Research Institute for Language and Speech, Utrecht.
206. Longobardi, G. (2001) ‘The structure of DPs: some principles, parameters and problems’, in Baltin and Collins (eds.), pp. 562–603.
207. López, L. (2001) ‘On the (non)complementarity of θ-Theory and Checking Theory’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 694–716.
208. Lutz, U., Müller, G. and von Stechow, A. (eds.) (2000) Wh-Scope Marking, Benjamins, Amsterdam.
209. Lyons, C. (1999) Definiteness, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
210. Martin, R. (2001) ‘Null case and the distribution of PRO’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 141–66.
211. McCloskey, J. (2000) ‘Quantifier Float and Wh-Movement in an Irish English’, Linguistic Inquiry 31: 57–84.
212. McCloskey, J. (2001) ‘The morphosyntax of WH-extraction in Irish’, Journal of Linguistics 37: 67–100.
213. McDaniel, D. (1989) ‘Partial and multiple wh-movement’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7: 565–604.
214. McNally, L. (1992) ‘VP-coordination and the VP-internal subject hypothesis’, Linguistic Inquiry 23: 336–41.
215. McNeill, D. (1966) ‘Developmental Psycholinguistics’, in F. Smith and G. A. Miller (eds.), The Genesis of Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 15–84.
216. Marantz, A. (1984) On the Nature of Grammatical Relations, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
217. Marcus, G. F. (1993) ‘Negative evidence in language acquisition’, Cognition 46: 53–85.
218. Moore, J. and Perlmutter, D. M. (2000) ‘What does it take to be a dative subject?’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 373–416.
219. Morgan, J. L. and Travis, L. (1989) ‘Limits on negative information in language input’, Journal of Child Language 16: 531–52.
220. Moro, A. (1997) The Raising of Predicates: Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
221. Murasugi, K. and Saito, M. (1994) ‘Adjunction and cyclicity’, Proceedings of the 13th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pp. 302–17.
222. Nakajima, H. (2001) ‘Verbs in locative constructions and the generative lexicon’, The Linguistic Review 18: 43–67.
223. Namai, K. (2000) ‘Gender features in English’, Linguistics 38: 771–9.
224. Nasu, N. (2001) ‘Associating EPP with ø-completeness’, Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society 31: 351–67.
225. Nasu, N. (2002) ‘Aspects of the Syntax of A-Movement: a Study of English Infinitival Contructions and Related Phenomena’, PhD diss., University of Essex.
226. Nunes, J. (1999) ‘Linearization of chains and phonetic realisation of chain links’, in S. D. Epstein and N. Hornstein (eds.), Working Minimalism, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 217–49.
227. Nunes, J. (2001) ‘Sideward movement’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 303–44.
228. Nunes, J. and Uriagereka, J. (2000) ‘Cyclicity and extraction domains’, Syntax 3: 20–43.
229. Ochi, M. (1999) ‘Multiple spell-out and PF-adjacency’, Proceedings of the North-EasternLinguistic Society 29.
230. Oya, T. (2002) ‘Reflexives and resultatives: some differences between English and German’, Linguistics 40: 961–86.
231. Parker, S. (1999) ‘On the behaviour of definite articles in Chamicuro’, Language 75: 552–62.
232. Pesetsky, D. (1987) ‘Wh-in-situ: movement and unselective binding’, in E. J. Reuland and A. G. B. ter Meulen (eds.), The Representation of (In)definiteness, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 98–129.
233. Pesetsky, D. (1995) Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
234. Pesetsky, D. (1997) ‘Optimality Theory and Syntax: Movement and Pronunciation’, in D. Archangeli and D. T. Langendoen (eds.), Optimality Theory: an Overview, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 134–70.
235. Pesetsky, D. (1998) ‘Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation’, in P. Barbosa, D. Fox, P. Hagstrom, M. McGinnis and D. Pesetsky (eds.), Is the Best Good Enough? MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 337–83.
236. Pesetsky, D. (2000) Phrasal Movement and Its Kin, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.
237. Pesetsky, D. and Torrego, E. (2001) ‘T-to-C movement: causes and consequences’, in M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: a Life in Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 355–426.
238. Phillips, C. (2003) ‘Linear order and constituency’, Linguistic Inquiry 34: 37–90.
239. Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (2000) ‘The metric of open-mindedness’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 18: 859–62.
240. Picallo, M. C. (1991) ‘Nominals and nominalization in Catalan’, Probus 3: 279–316.
241. Platzack, C. and Holmberg, A. (1989) ‘The role of AGR and finiteness’, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 44: 101–17.
242. Polinsky, M. and Potsdam, E. (2001) ‘Long-distance agreement and Topic in Tsez’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 583–646.
243. Pollock, J.-Y. (1989) ‘Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP’, Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.
244. Postal, P. M. (1966) ‘On so-called pronouns in English’, in F. Dinneen (ed.), Nineteenth Monograph on Language and Linguistics, Georgetown University Press, Washington DC (reprinted in D. Reibel and S. Schane (eds.) (1969) Modern Studies in English, PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 201–24).
245. Postal, P. M. (1974) On Raising, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
246. Potts, C. (2002) ‘The syntax and semantics of as-parentheticals’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 623–89.
247. Pullum, G. K. and Scholz, B. C. (2002) ‘Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments’, The Linguistic Review 19: 9–50.
248. Radford, A. (1981) Transformational Syntax, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
249. Radford, A. (1988) Transformational Grammar, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
250. Radford, A. (1993) ‘Head-hunting: on the trail of the nominal Janus’, in G. Corbett, N. M. Fraser and S. McGlashan (eds.), Heads in Grammatical Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 73–11.
251. Radford, A. (1994) ‘The syntax of questions in child English’, Journal of Child Language 21: 211–36.
252. Radford, A. (1997a) Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
253. Radford, A. (1997b) Syntax: a Minimalist Introduction, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
254. Radford, A., Atkinson, M., Britain, D., Clahsen, H. and Spencer, A. (1999) Linguistics: an Introduction, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
255. Ramat, P. (1999) ‘Linguistic categories and linguists’ categorizations’, Linguistics 37: 157–80.
256. Reintges, C. H, LeSourd, P. and Chung, S. (2002) ‘Movement, wh-agreement and apparent whinsitu’, paper presented toWorkshop on Wh-Movement, University of Leiden, December 2002.
257. Reuland, E. (2000) ‘Revolution, discovery and an elementary principle of logic’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 843–8.
258. Reuland, E. (2001a) ‘Primitives of Binding’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 439–92.
259. Reuland, E. (2001b) ‘Confusion compounded’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 879–85.
260. Reuland, E. and Everaert, M. (2001) ‘Deconstructing Binding’, in Baltin and Collins (eds.), pp. 634–70.
261. Richards, N. (1997) ‘What moves where when in which language?’ PhD diss., MIT.
262. Rickford, J. R. (1986) ‘Social contact and linguistic diffusion: Hiberno-English and NewWorld Black English’, Language 62: 245–89.
263. Ritter, E. (1991) ‘Two functional categories in noun phrases: evidence from Modern Hebrew’, in S. Rothstein (ed.), Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing, Academic Press, New York, pp. 37–62.
264. Rizzi, L. (1992) ‘Early null subjects and root null subjects’, Geneva Generative Papers vol. 0, pp. 102–14.
265. Rizzi, L. (1997) ‘The fine structure of the left periphery’, in L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 281–337.
266. Rizzi, L. (2000) ‘Remarks on early null subjects’, in M.-A. Freidemann and L. Rizzi (eds.), The Acquisition of Syntax, London, Longman, pp. 269–92.
267. Rizzi, L. (2001a) ‘Relativized minimality effects’, in Baltin and Collins (eds.), pp. 89-110.
268. Rizzi, L. (2001b) ‘On the position “Int(errogative)” in the left periphery of the clause’, in G. Cinque and G. Salvi (eds.), Current Issues in Italian Syntax, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 287–96.
269. Rizzi, L. (2003) ‘Locality and Left Periphery’, to appear in A. Belletti (ed.), Structures and Beyond: the Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 2, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
270. Roberts, I. (1993) Verbs and Diachronic Syntax, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
271. Roberts, I. (1994) ‘Two types of head movement in Romance’, in Hornstein and Lightfoot (eds.), pp. 207–42.
272. Roberts, I. (1997) ‘Restructuring, head movement and locality’, Linguistic Inquiry 28: 423–60.
273. Roberts, I. (1998) ‘Have/Be Raising, Move F and Procrastinate’, Linguistic Inquiry 29: 113–25.
274. Roberts, I. (2000) ‘Caricaturing dissent’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 849–57.
275. Roberts, I. (2001a) ‘Who has confused what? More on Lappin, Levine and Johnson’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 887–90.
276. Roberts, I. (2001b) ‘Head Movement’, in Baltin and Collins (eds.), pp. 113–47.
277. Roberts, I. (2002) Paper on Verb Movement presented at visiting speaker seminar, University of Essex.
278. Rohrbacher, B. (1999) Morphology-Driven Syntax: a theory of V-to-I raising and pro-drop, Benjamins, Amsterdam.
279. Romero, M. (1997) ‘The correlation between scope reconstruction and connectivity effects’, in E. Curtiss, J. Lyle and G. Webster (eds.), Proceedings of the XVI West Coast Conference in Formal Linguistics, CLSI, Stanford, pp. 351–65.
280. Rosen, S. T. (1990) Argument Structure and Complex Predicates, Garland, New York.
281. Ross, J. R. (1967) ‘Constraints on Variables in Syntax’, PhD diss., MIT (published as Infinite Syntax! by Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, NJ, 1986).
282. Ross, J. R. (1970) ‘On declarative sentences’, in R. A. Jacobs and P. S. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Ginn, Waltham, Mass. pp. 222–72.
283. Runner, J. (1998) Noun Phrase Licensing and Interpretation, Garland, New York.
284. Rymer, R. (1993) Genie: a Scientific Tragedy, Harper Perennial, New York.
285. Sabel, J. (2002) ‘Aminimalist analysis of syntactic islands’, The Linguistic Review19: 271–315.
286. Saddy, D. (1991) ‘Wh scope mechanisms in Bahasa Indonesia’, in L. Cheng and H. Demirdache (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 15: 183–218.
287. Sadock, J. M. (1984) ‘West Greenlandic’, in W. S. Chisholm (ed.), Interrogativity, Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 189–214.
288. Safir, K. (1986) Syntactic Chains, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
289. Safir, K. (1993) ‘Perception, selection and structural economy’, Natural Language Semantics 2: 47–70.
290. Sag, I. (1997) ‘English relative clause constructions’, Journal of Linguistics 33: 431–83.
291. Sampson, G. (2002) ‘Exploring the richness of the stimulus’, The Linguistic Review 19: 73–104.
292. Sauerland, U. (1998) ‘The Meaning of Chains’, PhD diss., MIT.
293. Sauerland, U. and Elbourne, P. (2002) ‘Total reconstruction, PF movement and derivational order’, Linguistic Inquiry 33: 283–319.
294. Scholz, B. C. and Pullum, G. K. (2002) ‘Searching for arguments to support linguistic nativism’, The Linguistic Review 19: 185–223.
295. Schütze, C. (2001) ‘On the nature of default case’, Syntax 4: 205–38.
296. Seppänen, A. and Trotta, J. (2000) ‘The wh+that pattern in present-day English’, in J. M. Kirk (ed.), Corpora Galore: Analyses and Techniques in Describing English, Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp. 161–75.
297. Shima, E. (2000) ‘A preference for Move over Merge’, Linguistic Inquiry 31: 375–85.
298. Sigurðsson, H. A. (1991) ‘Icelandic case-marked PRO and the licensing of lexical arguments’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 327–63.
299. Sigurðsson, H. A. (1996) ‘Icelandic finite verb agreement’, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57: 1–46.
300. Sigurðsson, H. A. (2002) ‘To be an oblique subject: Russian vs. Icelandic’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 691–724.
301. Smith, N. (1998) ‘Jackdaws, sex and language acquisition’, Glot International 3, 7: 7.
302. Smith, N. (1999) Chomsky: Ideas and Ideals, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
303. Smith, N. and Cormack, A. (2002) ‘Indeterminacy, inference, iconicity and interpretation: aspects of the grammar-pragmatics interface’, in M. Makri-Tsilipakou (ed.), Selected Papers on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, pp. 38–53.
304. Sobin, N. (2002) ‘The Comp-trace effect, the adverb effect, and minimal CP’, Journal of Linguistics 38: 527–60.
305. Sorace, A. (2000) ‘Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs’, Language 76: 859–90.
306. Speas, P. (1986) ‘Adjunction and Projections in Syntax’, PhD diss., MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
307. Spencer, A. J. (1991) Morphological Theory, Blackwell, Oxford.
308. Sportiche, D. (1988) ‘A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure’, Linguistic Inquiry 19: 425–49.
309. Sportiche, D. (1998) ‘Movement, agreement and case’, in Partitions and Atoms of Clause Structure, Routledge, London, pp. 88–243.
310. Stepanov, A. (2001) ‘Late adjunction and minimalist phrase structure’, Syntax 4: 94–125.
311. Stockwell, R., Schachter, P. and Hall Partee, B. (1973) The Major Syntactic Structures of English, Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York.
312. Stowell, T. (1981) ‘Origins of Phrase Structure’, PhD dissertation, MIT.
313. Stowell, T. (1982) ‘The tense of infinitives’, Linguistic Inquiry 13: 561–70.
314. Stroik, T. (1990) ‘Adverbs as V-Sisters’, Linguistic Inquiry 21: 654–61.
315. Stroik, T. (2001) ‘On the light verb hypothesis’, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 362–9.
316. Sũner, M. (1994) ‘V-movement and the licensing of argumental wh-phrases in Spanish’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12: 335–72.
317. Sũner, M. (2000) ‘The syntax of direct quotes with special reference to Spanish and English’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 525–78.
318. Svenonius, P. (2002a) ‘Case is uninterpretable aspect’, http://www.hum.uit.no/a/svenonius/paperspage.html.
319. Svenonius, P. (2002b) ‘Icelandic case and the structure of events’, http://www.hum.uit.no/a/svenonius/paperspage.html.
320. Tallerman, M. O. (1993) ‘Case assignment and the order of functional projections in Welsh’, in A. Siewierska (ed.), Eurotyp Working Papers, Programme in Language Typology, European Science Foundation, pp. 1–41.
321. Taraldsen, T. (1990) ‘D-projections and N-projections in Norwegian’, in M. Nespor and J. Mascar`o (eds.), Grammar in Progress, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 419–31.
322. Ten Hacken, P. (2001) Review of Radford 1997a/b, Natural Language Engineering 7/1.
323. Thomas, M. (2002) ‘Development of the concept of “the poverty of stimulus” ’, The Linguistic Review 19: 51–71.
324. Thornton, R. (1995) ‘Referentiality and Wh-Movement in Child English: juvenile DLinkuency’, Language Acquisition 4: 139–75.
325. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. (1988) ‘The origins and development of periphrastic auxiliary do: a case of destigmatisation’, Dutch Working Papers in English Language and Linguistics 3: 1–30.
326. Traugott, E. C. (1972) A History of English Syntax, Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York.
327. Travis, L. (1984) ‘Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation’, PhD diss., MIT.
328. Ura, H. (1993) ‘On feature-checking for wh-traces’, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 243–80.
329. Ura, H. (2001) ‘Local economy and generalized pied-piping’, The Linguistic Review 18: 169–91.
330. Uriagereka, J. (1988) ‘On Government’, PhD diss., University of Connecticut.
331. Uriagereka, J. (1998) Rhyme and Reason, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
332. Uriagereka, J. (2000) ‘On the emptiness of “design” polemics’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 863–71.
333. Uriagereka, J. (2001) ‘Cutting derivational options’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 891–900.
334. Vainikka, A. and Levy, Y. (1999) ‘Empty subjects in Finnish and Hebrew’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 613–71.
335. Valois, D. (1991) ‘The Syntax of DP’, PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles.
336. Vikner, S. (1995) Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in Germanic Languages, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
337. Vikner, S. (1997) ‘V0-to-I0 movement and inflection for person in all tenses’, in L. Haegeman (ed.), The New Comparative Syntax, Longman, London, pp. 189–213.
338. Wakelin, M. F. (1977, 2nd edn.) English Dialects: an Introduction, Athlone, London.
339. Watanabe, A. (2001) ‘Wh-in-situ languages’, in Baltin and Collins (eds.), pp. 203–25.
340. Wexler, K. (1994) ‘Optional Infinitives, Head Movement and the Economy of Derivations’, in Hornstein and Lightfoot (eds.), pp. 305–50.
341. Williams, E. (1994) Thematic Structure in Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
342. Willis, D. (2000) ‘On the distribution of resumptive pronouns and wh-trace inWelsh’, Journal of Linguistics 36: 531–73.
343. Wiltschko, M. (2001) ‘The syntax of pronouns: evidence from Halkomelem Salish’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 157–95.
344. Wolfram, W. (1971) ‘Black-white speech differences revisited’, in W.Wolfram and N. H. Clark (eds.), Black-White Speech Relationships, Center For Applied Linguistics, Washington DC, pp. 139–61.
345. Woolford, E. (1991) ‘VP-internal subjects in VSO and nonconfigurational languages’, Linguistic Inquiry 22: 503–40.
346. Xu, L. (2003) ‘Choice between the overt and the covert’, Transactions of the Philological Society 101: 81–107.
347. Yang, C. D. (1999) ‘Unordered Merge and its linearization’, Syntax 1: 38–64.
348. Zagona, K. (1987) Verb Phrase Syntax, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
349. Zwart, C. J-W. (2001) ‘Syntactic and phonological verb movement’, Syntax 4: 34–62.
350. Zwicky, A. (2002) ‘I wonder what kind of construction that this kind of example illustrates’, in D. Beaver, L. D. Casillas Mart´ınez, B. Z. Clark and S. Kaufmann (eds.), The Construction of Meaning, CSLI Publications, pp. 219–48.