Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T18:06:50.682Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

John Bowers, Arguments as relations (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 58). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010. Pp. xii+239.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2012

Jonathan E. MacDonald
Jonathan E. MacDonald*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
*
Author's address:Department of Linguistics/Department of Spanish, Italian & Portuguese, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, 4080 Foreign Language Building, 707 S Mathews Avenue, MC-168, Urbana, IL 61801, USAjonmacd@illinois.edu
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
Reviews
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 222 - 227
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36.1, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Chris. 1997. Local economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris. 2005. A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8.2, 81–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo A. 1986. Passive. Linguistic Inquiry 17.4, 587–622.Google Scholar