Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T03:04:10.970Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

REVIEWS - Derivations and Evaluations: Object Shift in the Germanic Languages.. By Hans Broekhuis. (Studies in Generative Grammar, 97). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 2008. Pp. xiv, 382. Hardcover. €114.95.*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2013

MICHAEL T. PUTNAM
MICHAEL T. PUTNAM*
Affiliation:
Penn State University
*
Penn State University, Department of Germanic and Slavic Languages and Literatures, 427 Burrowes Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA, [mtp12@psu.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 Germanic Linguistics , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 81 - 94
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2013

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

Bresnan, Joan. 1996. LFG in an OT Setting: Modeling Competition and Economy. Proceedings of the First LFG Conference. Stanford, California, CSLI Publications. http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/ (November 19, 2012).Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2000. Optimal syntax. Optimality theory: Phonology, syntax and acquisition, ed. by Dekkers, Joost, van der Leeuw, Frank, & van de Weijer, Jeroen, 334–385. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. The emergence of the unmarked pronoun. Optimality-theoretic syntax, ed. by Legendre, Géraldine, Grimshaw, Jane, & Vikner, Sten, 113–142. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans, & Wim, Klooster. 2001. On merge and move/attract. Progress in grammar. Articles at the 20th anniversary of the Comparison of Grammatical Models Group in Tilburg, ed. by van Oostendop, Marc and Anagnostopoulou, Elena. http://www.meertens.knaw.nl/books/progressinggrammar (November 19, 2012).Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, & Uriagereka, Juan, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale. A life in language, ed. by Kenstowicz, Michael, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, & Howard, Lasnik. 1977. Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 425–504.Google Scholar
Dekkers, Joost. 1999. Derivations and evaluations. On the syntax of subjects and complementizers. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam/HIL dissertation.Google Scholar
Déprez, Viviane. 1989. On the typology of syntactic positions and the nature of chains: Move-alpha to the specifier of functional projections. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Frampton, John, & Sam, Gutmann. 2002. Crash-proof syntax. Derivations and explanations in the minimalist program, ed. by Epstein, Samuel D. & Seely, T. Daniel, 90–105. Malden, MA/Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1997. Projection, heads, and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 373–422.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mahajan, Anoop. 1990. The A/A-bar distinction and movement theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1997. Optimality theory and syntax: Movement and pronunciation. Optimality theory, ed. by Archangeli, Diana & Langendoen, Terry, 134–170. Malden, MA/Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1998. Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation. Is the best good enough? ed. by Barbosa, Pilar, Fox, Daniel, Hagstrom, Paul, McGinnis, Martha, & Pesetsky, Dadic, 337–383. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sappir, Michael. 2011. The possessor dative construction in Modern Hebrew: Movement as repel-based extremely local optimalization. Leipzig: University of Leipzig BA thesis.Google Scholar
Stroik, Thomas S. 2009. Locality in minimalist syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2000. Quantifier movement in Icelandic. The derivation of VO and OV, ed. by Svenonius, P., 255–292. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, Ralf. 2004. Remarks on the architecture of OT-syntax grammars. Optimality theory and pragmatics, ed. by Blutner, Reinhard & Zeevat, Henk, 211–227. Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webelhuth, Gert. 1989. Syntactic saturation phenomena and the modern Germanic languages. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts-Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Webelhuth, Gert. 1992. Principles and parameters of syntactic saturation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1997. Morphosyntax of verb movement: A minimalist approach to the syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar