On Logical Form

Minimalist Syntax

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 82-123

  Fox, Danny ^a  

^a MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Function; Logical form (lf); Quantificational noun phrases (qnp); Semantics; Syntactic structure

Indexed keywords

EID: 84949474430     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9780470758342.ch2     Document Type: Chapter

References (109)

1. Abe, J. and Hoshi, H. (1999). A generalized rightward movement analysis of Antecedent Contained Deletion. Journal of Linguistics, 35, 451-87.
2. Abush, D. (1994). The scope of indefinites. Natural Language Semantics, 2, 83-135.
3. Aguero-Bautista, C. (2001). On pair list readings. North East Linguistics Society, 30, 95-110.
4. Aoun, J. and Li, A. (1993). The syntax of scope. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. Baltin, M. (1987). Do antecedent contained deletions exist? Linguistic Inquiry, 18, 579-95.
6. Barker, C. (2002). The dynamics of vagueness. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 1-36.
7. Beghelli, F. and Stowell, T. (1997). Distributivity and negation. In A. Szabolcsi (ed.), Ways of scope taking (pp. 71-107). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
8. Belletti, A. and Rizzi, L. (1988). Psych-verbs and theta theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6, 291-353.
9. Bhatt, R. and Pancheva, R. (2001). Variable height of adjunction and the LF licensing of degree complements. Unpublished manuscript. University of Texas at Austin.
10. Bobaljik, J. (1995). Morphosyntax: the syntax of verbal inflection. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, MITWPL.
11. Bobaljik, J. (2002). A-chains at the interface: copies, agreement and "covert movement". Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 20, 197-267.
12. Brody, M. (1995). Lexico-logical form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13. Brody, M. (1997). Perfect chains. In L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax. Kluwer International Handbooks of Linguistics, vol. 1. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
14. Bruening, B. (2001). QR obeys superiority: ACD and frozen scope. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 233-73.
15. Chomsky, N. (1976). Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis, 2, 303-51.
16. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.
17. Chomsky, N. (1993). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; re-printed as chapter 3 of Chomsky (1995).
18. Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89-155). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20. Chomsky, N. (2001). Beyond explanatory adequacy. Manuscript. MIT.
21. Cinque, G. (1981-2). On the theory of relative clauses and markedness. The Linguistic Review, 1, 247-94.
22. Cooper, R. (1979). Variable binding and relative clauses. In F. Guenthner and S. J. Schmidt (eds.), Formal semantics and pragmatics for natural languages. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
23. Cresti, D. (1999). Ellipsis and reconstruction in Relative Clauses. In Proceedings of NELS 30, Amherst: GLSA Publications.
24. Diesing, M. (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25. Dummett, M. (1977). Elements of intuitionism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
26. Elbourne, P. (2002). Situations and individuals. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
27. Fox, D. (2000). Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28. Fox, D. (2002). Antecedent contained deletion and the copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 33, 63-96.
29. Fox, D. and Nissenbaum, J. (1999). Extraposition and scope: a case for overt QR. Unpublished MS.
30. Friedin, R. (1986). Fundamental issues in the theory of binding. In B. Lust (ed.), Studies in the acquistion of anaphora. Dordrecht: Reidel.
31. Groat, E. and O'Neil, J. (1996). Spellout at the LF interface. In W. Abraham, S. D. Epstein, H. Thráinsson, and C. J.-W. Zwart (eds.), Minimal ideas: Syntactic studies in the minimalist framework (pp. 113-39). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
32. Guéron, J. and May, R. (1984). Extraposition and logical form. Linguistics Inquiry, 15, 1-31.
33. Heim, I. (1997). Predicates or formulas? evidence from ellipsis. In A. Lawon and E. Cho (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 7. (pp. 197-221). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
34. Heim, I. and Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
35. Hendriks, H. (1993). Studied flexibility. Amsterdam: ILLC Dissertation Series.
36. Heycock, C. (1995). Asymmetries in reconstruction. Linguistic Inquiry, 26, 547-70.
37. Hirschbühler, P. (1982). VP deletion and across the board quantifier scope. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society, 25, 425-40.
38. Hoji, H. (1985). Logical form constraints and configuration structures in Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington.
39. Hornstein, N. (1994). An argument for minimalism. The case of antecedent contained deletion. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 662-88.
40. Hornstein, N. (1995). Logical form: From GB to Minimalism. Oxford: Blackwell.
41. Huang, J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
42. Jacobson, P. (1992). Comment flexible categorial grammar, questions and prospects. In R. Levine (ed.), Formal grammar, theory and interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43. Jacobson, P. (1997). Where (if anywhere) is transderivationality located? In P. Cullicover and L. McNally (eds.), The limits of syntax: Syntax and semantics (pp. 303-66). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
44. Jacobson, P. (1999). Toward a variable free semantics. Linguistics and Philososphy, 22, 117-84.
45. Johnson, K. (2000). How far will quantifiers go? In R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriageka (eds.), Step by step. (pp. 187-210). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46. Johnson, K. and Tomioka, S. (1997). Lowering and mid-sized clauses. In Proceedings of the Tübingen Workshop on Reconstruction, ed. G. Katz, S. S. Kim, and W. Haike. University of Tübingen, pp. 185-206.
47. Kayne, R. S. (1974). French relative que. In M. Lujan and F. Hensey (eds.), Current studies in romance linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
48. Kayne, R. S. (1981). Two notes on the NIC. In A. Belletti, L. Brandi, and L. Rizzi (eds.), Theory of markedness in generative grammar: Proceedings of the 1979 Glow Conference. (pp. 475-516). Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.
49. Kayne, R. S. (1998). Overt vs. covert movements. Syntax, 1, 128-91.
50. Kennedy, C. (1994). Argument contained ellipsis, Linguistics Research Center Report LKC-94-03, Santa Cruz: University of California.
51. Kennedy, C. (1997). Antecedent contained deletion and the syntax of quantifiers. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 662-88.
52. Kennedy, C. (2000). Comparative deletion and optimality in syntax. Unpublished MS. Northwestern University.
53. Kiss, E. K. (1991). Logical structure and syntactic structure: the case of Hungarian. In C. T. J. Huang and R. May (eds.), Logical structure and syntactic structure: Cross-linguistic perspectives. (pp. 111-48). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
54. Klima, E. (1964). Negation in English. In J. Fodor and J. Katz (eds.), The Structure of Language. (pp. 246-323). New York: Prentice-Hall.
55. Kuno, S. (1997). Binding theory and the minimalist program. MS. Harvard University.
56. Kuroda, S.-Y. (1971). Remarks on the notion of subject with reference to words like also, even, or only, Part II. Annual Bulletin, 4, 127-52.
57. Lakoff, G. (1971). On generative Semantics, in Danny D. Steinberg, and Leon A. Jacobovits (eds.), Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader: Linguistics and psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 232-96.
58. Larson, R. and May, R. (1990). Antecedent containment or vacuous movement: reply to Baltin. Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 103-22.
59. Larson, R. and Segal, G. (1995). Knowledge of Meaning: An introduction to semantic theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
60. Lasnik, H. (1993). Lectures on minimalist syntax. Working Papers in Linguistics: Occasional Papers Issue 1 (reprinted in H. Lasnik (1999), Minimalist Analysis, Blackwell).
61. Lasnik, H. (1995). A note on pseudogapping, In R. Pensalfini and H. Ura (eds.), Papers on Minimalist Syntax. (pp. 143-64). MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 27. MITWPL, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
62. Lasnik, H. (1998). Reconstruction Riddles. UPenn Working Papers in Linguisitics, 5(1).
63. Lebeaux, D. (1988). Language acquisition and the form of the grammar. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
64. Lebeaux, D. (1991). Relative clauses, licensing, and the nature of the derivation. In S. Rothstein (ed.), Syntax and semantics 25: Perspectives on phrase structure: Heads and licensing. (pp. 209-39). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
65. Lebeaux, D. (1995). Where does the binding theory apply? University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 63-88. University of Maryland, College Park.
66. Lin, V. (2001). A way to undo A movement, in K. Megerdoomian and A. Bar-el (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference in Formal Linguistics. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. pp. 358-71.
67. May, R. (1977). The grammar of quantificiation. Doctoral dissertation. MIT.
68. May, R. (1985). Logical form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
69. May, R. (1988). Ambiguities of quantification. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 118-35.
70. McCawley, J. (1970). English as a VSO language. Language, 46, 286-99.
71. McCawley, J. (1988). The syntactic phenomena of English. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
72. Munn, A. (1994). A minimalist account of reconstruction asymetries. In M. Gonzalez (ed.), Proceedings of NELS 24. (pp. 397-410). GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
73. Nissenbaum, J. (2001). Investigations of covert phrase movement. Doctoral dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, MA.
74. Pesetsky, D. (1987). WH-in situ: movement and unselective binding. In E. Reuland and A. ter Meulen (eds.), The representation of (in)definiteness (pp. 98-167). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
75. Pesetsky, D. (1998). Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation. In P. Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis, and David Pesetsky (eds.), Is the best good enough? Optimality and competition in syntax?. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
76. Pesetsky, D. (2000). Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
77. Postal, P. (1974). On raising: One rule of English grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
78. Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.
79. Reinhart, T. (1991). Non-quantificational LF. In A. Kasher (ed.), The Chomskian turn (pp. 360-84). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
80. Reinhart, T. (1997). Quantifier-scope: how labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 335-97.
81. Richards, N. (2001). Movement in language: Interactions and architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
82. Riemsdijk, H. van, and E. Williams (1981). NP-structure. The Linguistic Review, 1, 171-217.
83. Rodman, R. (1976). Scope phenomena, movement transformations, and relative clauses. In B. Partee (ed.), Montague Grammar. (pp. 156-76). New York: Academic Press.
84. Romero, M. (1997). The correlation between scope reconstruction and connectivity effects. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference in Formal Linguistics, 16, 351-66. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
85. Rooth, M. (1992). Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. In S. Berman and A. Hestvik (eds.), Proceedings of Stutgart Ellipsis Workshop. Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, Bericht 29, Heidelberg: IBM Germany.
86. Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
87. Rullmann, H. and Beck, S. (1997). Presupposition projection and the interpretation of which-questions. In Devon Strolovitch and Aaron Lawson (eds.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory VIII (pp. 215-32). Department of Linguistics, Cornell University.
88. Ruys, E. (1992). The scope of indefinites. Doctoral dissertation. Utrecht University.
89. Safir, K. (1998). Symmetry and unity in the theory of anaphora, in H. Bennis, P. Pica, and J. Rooryck (eds.), Atomism and Binding. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Foris.
90. Safir, K. (1999). Vehicle change and reconstruction of A-bar-chains. Linguistic Inquiry, 304, 587-620.
91. Sag, I. (1976). Deletion and logical form. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
92. Sauerland, U. (1998). The making and meaning of chains. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
93. Sauerland, U. (2001). Syntactic economy and quantifier raising. Unpublished MS, Tübingen.
94. Sauerland, U. and Steckow, A. von (2000). The syntax-semantics interface. In N. Smelser and P. Bates (eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behaviorial sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
95. Schmitt, C. (1995). Antecedent contained deletion meets the copy theory. Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society, 25, 425-40.
96. Sportiche, D. (2001). Reconstruction, binding and scope. Unpublished manuscript. UCLA.
97. Sternefeld, W. (2001). Semantic vs. Syntactic Reconstruction. In H. Kamp, A. Rossdeutscher, and C. Rhorer (eds.), Linguistic form and its computation (pp. 145-82). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
98. Stroik, T. (1992). Adverbs and antecedent contained deletion. Linguistics, 30, 375-83.
99. Szabolcsi, A. (1998). Ways of scope taking. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
100. Taraldsen, T. (1981). The theoretical interpretation of a class of marked extractions. In A. Belletic, L. Brandi, and L. Rizzi (eds.), Theory of markedness in generative grammar: Proceedings of the 1979 Glow Conference. (pp. 475-516). Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.
101. Tiedeman, R. (1995). Some remarks on antecedent contained deletion. In S. Haraguchi and M. Funaki (eds.), Minimalism and linguistic theory. Hituzi Linguistics Workshop Series no. 4. Japan: Hituz Syobo.
102. Tomioka, S. (2001). Information structure and disambiguation in Japanese. In K. Megerdoomian and A. Bar-el (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference in Formal Linguistics. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. pp. 552-64.
103. Vergnaud, J.-R. (1974). French relative clauses. Doctoral dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
104. Wilder, C. (1995). Antecedent containment and ellipsis. FAS Papers in Linguistics, 4, 132-65.
105. Wilder, C. (1997). Phrasal Movement in LF: de re readings, VP Ellipsis and Binding. Proceeding of NELS 27, 425-40.
106. Williams, E. (1974). Rule Ordering in Syntax. , Doctoral dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
107. Williams, E. (1977). Discourse and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 101-39.
108. Williams, E. (1986). A reassignment of the functions of LF. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 264-300.
109. Wyngaerd, Vanden G., and C. J. W. Zwart (1991). Reconstruction and Vehicle Change. In F. Drijkoningen and A. van Kemenade (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands. (pp. 151-60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.