Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T18:54:12.027Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The post-transformational enterprise1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 October 2008

JAMES P. BLEVINS
JAMES P. BLEVINS
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , November 2008 , pp. 723 - 742
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

I am grateful to Farrell Ackerman for discussion of and comments on an earlier version of this paper and to two anonymous JL referees and an associate editor for criticisms and suggestions that have led to improvements in the present version.

References

REFERENCES

Bach, Emmon. 1979. Control in Montague Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 10, 515–531.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P. 1994. Derived constituent order in unbounded dependency constructions. Journal of Linguistics 30, 349–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bod, Rens, Hay, Jennifer & Jannedy, Stefanie (eds.) 2003. Probabilistic linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982a. Control and complementation. Linguistic Inquiry 13.3, 343–434.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982b. The passive in lexical theory. In Bresnan, (ed.) 3–86.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan (ed.) 1982c. The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1964. Current issues in linguistic theory. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In R. A., Jacobs & P. S., Rosenbaum (eds.) Readings in English transformational grammar, 184–222. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Company. [Reprinted in Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar, 1–61. The Hague: Mouton.]Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, Stephen R. & Kiparsky, Paul (eds.) A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 232–286. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1976. Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis 2, 303–351.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1991. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In Freiden, Robert (ed.) Principles and parameters in Generative Grammar, 417–454. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A Minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale, & Keyser, (eds.) 1–52.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clahsen, Harald. 1999. Lexical entries and rules of language: A multidisciplinary study of German inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22, 991–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. 1999. Syntactic nuts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jong, Nivja H., Schreuder, Robert & Baayen, R. Harald. 2000. The morphological family size effect and morphology. Language and Cognitive Processes 15, 329–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam & Baayen, R. Harald. 2003. Predicting the unpredictable: Interpreting neutralized segments in Dutch. Language 79, 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald. 1981. Unbounded dependencies and coordinate structure. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 155–184.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Sag, Ivan A.. 1985. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Hale, & Keyser, (eds.) 53–109.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.) 1993a. The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Randy Allen. 1993. The linguistics wars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Zellig S. 1951. Methods in structural linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Zellig S. 1957. Co-occurrence and transformation in linguistic structure. Language 33, 283–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Zellig S. 1965. Transformational theory. Language 41, 363–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer & Harald Baayen, R. Harald. 2005. Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9, 342–348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hockett, Charles F. 1954. Two models of grammatical description. Word 10, 210–231. [Reprinted in Martin Joos (ed.), 1957, Readings in linguistics I, 386–399. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1958. A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1987. Refurbishing our foundations. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huck, Geoffrey J. & John, A. Goldsmith. 1995. Ideology and linguistic theory: Noam Chomsky and the deep structure debates. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1937. Analytic syntax. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Johnson, David E. & Lappin, Shalom. 1999. Local constraints vs. economy. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M. & Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In Bresnan, (ed.) 173–281.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1983. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Koster, Jan. 1978. Locality principles in syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335–391.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert B. 1957. Review of Syntactic structures. Language 33, 375–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Peter H. 1993. Grammatical theory in the United States from Bloomfield to Chomsky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Peter H. 2001. A short history of structural linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1982. Parentheticals and discontinuous constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 13, 99–107.Google Scholar
Moscoso del Prado Martín, Fermín, Bertram, Raymond, Haikio, Tuomo, Schreuder, Robert & Baayen, R. Harald. 2004. Morphological family size in a morphologically rich language: The case of Finnish compared to Dutch and Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 30, 1271–1278.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2005. Possible and probable languages: A generative perspective on linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, M. (ed.) 1983. Studies in Relational Grammar 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1999. Words and rules. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford: CSLI & Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365–424.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 2004. Sceptical linguistic essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Barbara, Scholtz. 2002. Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review 19, 8–50.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. [Published 1986 as Infinite syntax! Norwood, NJ: Ablex.]Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 1997. English relative clause constructions. Journal of Linguistics 30, 431–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seuren, Peter A. M. 2004. Chomsky's Minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Soames, Scott & Perlmutter, David M.. 1979. Syntactic argumentation and the structure of English. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P. 1962. Discussion of ‘A transformational approach to syntax’. In Hill, Archibald A. (ed.) The Third Texas Conference on Problems of Linguistic Analysis in English, 158–169. Austin, TX: University of Texas.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar