Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 The Comparative Syntactic Enterprise
- Part I Comparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
- 2 Theoretical Approaches to Comparative Syntax
- 3 Databases for Comparative Syntactic Research
- 4 Quantitative Approaches to Syntactic Variation
- 5 Computational Approaches to Syntactic Variation
- 6 Comparative Syntax from Formal and Functional Perspectives
- 7 Micro-Comparative Syntax, Dialectology, and Sociolinguistics
- 8 Change
- 9 Universal and Language-Specific Properties of Language
- Part II Comparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
- Part III Comparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
- Part IV Comparative Syntax: Interfaces
- Index
- References
2 - Theoretical Approaches to Comparative Syntax
from Part I - Comparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2026
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 The Comparative Syntactic Enterprise
- Part I Comparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
- 2 Theoretical Approaches to Comparative Syntax
- 3 Databases for Comparative Syntactic Research
- 4 Quantitative Approaches to Syntactic Variation
- 5 Computational Approaches to Syntactic Variation
- 6 Comparative Syntax from Formal and Functional Perspectives
- 7 Micro-Comparative Syntax, Dialectology, and Sociolinguistics
- 8 Change
- 9 Universal and Language-Specific Properties of Language
- Part II Comparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
- Part III Comparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
- Part IV Comparative Syntax: Interfaces
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter provides an overview of the various approaches to theoretical modeling of syntactic variation in human language. Three main types of syntactic variation, i.e., word order variation, silence and doubling, are described and then used to demonstrate how different generative theories capture these phenomena. The generative theories discussed include Transformational Generative Grammar (TGG), Government and Binding (GB) Theory, Minimalism (including Optimality Theory), Nanosyntax, Distributed Morphology, and post-GB Parameter Theory (including parameter hierarchies and the Universal Spine Hypothesis). Taking into account a great many different languages and dialects, the chapter shows that strong progress has been made in our understanding of the nature, range, and limits of syntactic variation.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax , pp. 23 - 74Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Abels, K., and Neeleman, A.. 2012. Linear asymmetries and the LCA. Syntax 15(1): 25–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A. 2010. On the morphosyntax of (anti) causative verbs. In Rappaport Hovav, M., Doron, E., and Sichel, I. (eds.), Lexical Semantics, Syntax, and Event Structure, 177–203. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archangeli, D., and Langendoen, T. (eds.). 1997. Optimality Theory: An Overview. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 1985. The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 373–415.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 2008a. The macroparameter in a microparametric world. In Biberauer, T. (ed.), The Limits of Syntactic Variation, 351–373. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. 2008b. The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. 2010. Formal generative typology. In Heine, B. and Narrog, H. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, 285–312. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 2013. Agreement and case. In den Dikken, M. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax, 607–654. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M., and McCloskey, J.. 2007. On the relationship of typology to theoretical syntax. Linguistic Typology 11: 285–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M., and Willie, W. U.. 2010. Agreement in Ibibio: From every head to every head. Syntax 13(2): 99–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bárány, A. 2018. Person, Case, and Agreement: The Morphosyntax of Inverse Agreement and Global Case Splits, 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barbiers, S. 2008. Microvariation in syntactic doubling: An introduction. In Barbiers, S., Koeneman, O., and Lekakou, M. (eds.), Microvariation in Syntactic Doubling, 1–34. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbiers, S. 2013. Microsyntactic variation. In Den Dikken, M. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax, 899–926. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbiers, S., Koeneman, O., Lekakou, M., and van der Ham, M. (eds.). 2008a. Microvariation in Syntactic Doubling. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbiers, S., van der Auwera, J., Bennis, H., Boef, E., de Vogelaer, G., and van der Ham, M.. 2008b. Syntactic Atlas of the Dutch Dialects, vol. 2. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. C., and Chomsky, N.. 2016. Why Only Us: Language and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, R., and Walkow, M.. 2013. Locating agreement in grammar: An argument from agreement in conjunctions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31(4): 951–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. 2008. Introduction. In Biberauer, T. (ed.), The Limits of Syntactic Variation, 7–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. 2011. In defence of lexico-centric parametric variation: two 3rd factor-constrained case studies, Presented at the Workshop on Formal Grammar and Syntactic Variation: Rethinking Parameters, Madrid.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. 2017a. Factors 2 and 3: A principled approach. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 10: 38–65.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. 2017b. The final-over-final condition and particles. In Sheehan, M., Biberauer, T., Roberts, I., and Holmberg, A. (eds.), The Final-Over-Final Condition: A Syntactic Universal, 187–296. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. 2018a. Less is more: On the Tolerance Principle as a manifestation of Maximize Minimal Means. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 8(6): 707–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. 2018b. Pro-drop and emergent parameter hierarchies. In Cognola, F. and Casalicchio, J. (eds.), Null Subjects in Generative Grammar: A Synchronic and Diachronic Perspective, 94–136. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. 2019a. Children always go beyond the input: The Maximize Minimal Means perspective. Theoretical Linguistics 45(3–4): 211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. 2019b. Factors 2 & 3: Towards a principled approach. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 45: 45–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T., and Roberts, I.. 2012. The Significance of What Hasn’t Happened, Presented at the DiGS12, Lisbon.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T., and Roberts, I.. 2015a. Rethinking formal hierarchies: A proposed unification. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 7: 1–31.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T., and Roberts, I.. 2015b. The clausal hierarchy, features and parameters. In Shlonsky, U. (ed.), Beyond Functional Sequence: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 10, 295–313. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T., and Roberts, I.. 2017a. Conditional inversion and types of parametric change. In Los, B. and de Haan, P. (eds.), Word Order Change in Acquisition and Language Contact: Essays in Honour of Ans Van Kemenade, vol. 243, 57–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T., and Roberts, I.. 2017b. Parameter setting. In Ledgeway, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax, 134–162. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., and Roberts, I.. 2014. A syntactic universal and its consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 45(2): 169–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, J. 2002. A-chains at the PF-interface: Copies and “covert” movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20: 197–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, J. 2006. Where’s φ? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In Harbour, D., Adger, D., and Béjar, S. (eds.), Phi-Theory: Phi Features Across Interfaces and Modules, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. 2012. Universals in Comparative Morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, J. 2017. Distributed Morphology. In Lieber, R. (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Morphology, 1–42. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J., and Thràinsson, H.. 1998. Two heads aren’t always better than one. Syntax 1: 37–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C. 2011. Approaching parameters from below. In Di Sciullo, A. M. and Boeckx, C. (eds.), The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty, 205–221. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2005. On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP. Studia Linguistica 59(1): 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2009. More on the no-DP analysis of article-less languages. Studia Linguistica 63(2): 187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, H., and Vogel, R. (eds.). 2013. Linguistic Derivations and Filtering: Minimalism and Optimality Theory. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H., and Woolford, E.. 2013. Minimalism and Optimality Theory. In Den Dikken, M. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax, 122–161. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caha, P. 2018. Notes on insertion in Distributed Morphology and Nanosyntax. In Baunaz, L., De Clercq, K., Haegeman, L., and Lander, E. (eds.), Exploring Nanosyntax, 57–87. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Caha, P. To appear. Nanosyntax: Some key features. In Alexiadou, A., Kramer, R., Marantz, A., and Oltra-Massuet, I. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Distributed Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, M. 2021. Verbose exponence: Integrating the typologies of multiple and distributed exponence. Morphology 32: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstens, V. 2001. Multiple agreement and case deletion: Against phi-(in)completeness. Syntax 4(3): 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, J., and Harley, H.. 2019. Locality domains and morphological rules: Phases, heads, node-sprouting and suppletion in Korean honorification. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37, 1319–1365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R. and Rosenbaum, P. (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist enquiries. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., and Uriagareka, J. (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36(1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, K., Jørgensen, H., and Wood, J.. 2019. The Sign of the V: Papers in Honour of Sten Vikner. Aarhus: Aarhus University. https://doi.org/10.7146/aul.348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, S. 2012. Are lexical categories universal? The view from Chamorro. Theoretical Linguistics 38(1–2): 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. (ed.). 2002. Functional Structure in DP and IP, vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. 2005. Deriving Greenberg’s Universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry 36(3): 315–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G., and Rizzi, L. (eds.). 2010. Mapping Spatial PPs, vol. 6. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coon, J. 2016. Mayan morphosyntax. Language and Linguistics Compass 10: 515–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corver, N. 1990. The Syntax of Left Branch Extractions. PhD thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Brabant, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Clercq, K. 2020. The Morphosyntax of Negative Markers: A Nanosyntactic Account. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vogelaer, G., and Devos, M.. 2008. On geographical adequacy, or: how many types of subject doubling in Dutch. Syntax and Semantics 36: 251–276.Google Scholar
Demirdache, H., and Matthewson, L.. 1995. On the universality of syntactic categories. North East Linguistics Society 25(1): 79–93.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68: 81–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. 2013. Relationship between the order of object and verb and the order of adposition and noun phrase. In Dryer, M. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar
Embick, D., and Noyer, R. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32(4): 555–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ermisch, S. 2013. The Structure of Bambara. Ms., University of Frankfurt. https://user.uni-frankfurt.de/~tezimmer/HP_FG-RelS/PDF/The%20Structure%20of%20Bambara_Handout_Budapest%20Mai%202013.pdf.Google Scholar
Esipova, M. 2017. Two types of verb fronting in Russian. Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 26: 75–92.Google Scholar
Felser, C. 2001. Wh-expletives and secondary predication: German partial wh-movement reconsidered. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 13(1): 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fofana, A. T., and Traoré, M.. 2003. Bamanankan Reference Grammar. Madison, WI: National African Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
Fukui, N. 1995. The principles-and-parameters approach: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. In Shibatani, M. and Bynon, T. (eds.), Approaches to Language Typology, 327–371. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gianollo, C., Guardiano, C., and Longobardi, G.. 2008. Three fundamental issues in parametric linguistics. In Biberauer, T. (ed.), The Limits of Syntactic Variation, 109–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilligan, G. 1987. A Cross-Linguistic Approach to the Pro-Drop Parameter. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1982. Evidentiality and epistemic space. Studies in Language 6: 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgieva, E., Salzmann, M., and Weisser, P.. 2021. Negative verb clusters in Mari and Udmurt and why they require postsyntactic top-down word formation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 39: 457–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J. H. (ed.), Universals of Human Language, 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grohmann, K., Matsuya, A., and Remberger, E.-M. (eds.). 2021. Passives Cross-Linguistically: Theoretical and Experimental Approaches, vol. 17, Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, M., and Marantz, A.. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, K. and Keyser, J. (eds.), The View from Building 20, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, H. 2014. On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics 40: 225–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, H., and Noyer, R.. 1999. State-of-the-article: Distributed Morphology. Glot International 4: 3–9.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86(3): 663–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2011. The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45(1): 31–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2014. (Non-)Universality of Word-Classes and Words: The Mid-20th Century Shift. Ms., Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig. https://hiphilangsci.net/2014/10/08/non-universality-of-word-classes-and-words-the-mid-20th-century-shift/.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. 1983. Word Order Universals [Quantitative Analyses of Linguistic Structure Series]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. 1994. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Höhn, G. 2017. Non-Possessive Person in the Nominal Domain. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. 2017. Linguistic typology. In Roberts, I. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Universal Grammar, 355–376. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Horváth, J. 1997. The status of “wh-expletives” and the partial wh-movement construction of Hungarian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15(3): 509–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, X. 2020. Functional items, lexical information, and telicity: A parameter hierarchy-based approach to the telicity parameter. In Bárány, A., Biberauer, T., Douglas, J., and Vikner, S. (eds.), Syntactic Architecture and Its Consequences I: Syntax inside the Grammar, 329–355. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J., and Roberts, I.. 2016. Principles and parameters of Universal Grammar. In Roberts, I. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Universal Grammar, 306–354. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1977. X′-Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, D., and Postal, P.. 2016. Arc Pair Grammar. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Julien, M. 2002. Syntactic Heads and Word Formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, E. 2006. Negation and the left periphery in Finnish. Lingua 116(3): 314–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. 1996. Microparametric syntax: Some introductory remarks. In Black, J. R. and Motapanyane, V. (eds.), Microparametric Syntax and Dialect Variation, ix–xviii. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. 2005. Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference to English and French. In Cinque, G. and Kayne, R. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax, 3–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kertész, A., Moravcsik, E., and Rákosi, C. (eds.). 2019. Current Approaches to Syntax: A Comparative Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110540253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinyalolo, K. K. W. 1991. Syntactic Dependencies and the Spec–Head Agreement Hypothesis in KiLega. PhD thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar
Kitahara, H. 1997. Elementary Operations and Optimal Derivations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Koopman, H. 1984. The Syntax of Verbs: From Verb Movement Rules in the Kru Languages to Universal Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Koopman, H., and Szabolcsi, A.. 2000. Verbal Complexes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2013. Greek disguised as Romance? The case of Southern Italy. In Janse, M., Joseph, B., Ralli, A., and Bagriacik, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory, vol. 5, 184–227. Patras: Laboratory of Modern Greek Dialects, University of Patras.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2019a. Parameters and deixis: Modelling microvariation in Romance locative adverb systems. In Bidese, E., Casalicchio, J., and Moroni, M. (eds.), La linguistica vista dalle Alpi: Teoria, lessicografia e multilinguismo / Linguistic Views from the Alps: Language Theory, Lexicography and Multilingualism, 65–99. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2019b. Parameters in the development of Romance perfective auxiliary selection. In Cennamo, M. and Fabrizio, C. (eds.), Historical Linguistics 2015. Selected Papers from the 22nd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Naples, 27–31 July 2015, 343–384. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, A. 2020. Rethinking microvariation in Romance demonstrative systems. In Bárány, A., Biberauer, T., Douglas, J., and Vikner, S. (eds.), Syntactic Architecture and Its Consequences II: Between Syntax and Morphology, 451–490. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A., and Roberts, I. (eds.). 2017. The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, A., and Schifano, N.. 2022. Parametric variation. In Ledgeway, A. and Maiden, M. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Romance Linguistics [European Language and Linguistics], 637–670. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, A., Schifano, N., and Silvestri, G.. 2019. Differential Object Marking and the properties of D in the dialects of the extreme south of Italy. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1): 51. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.569.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. 2005. A minimalist program for parametric linguistics. In Broekhuis, H., Corver, N., Huybregts, R., Kleinhenz, U., and Koster, J. (eds.), Organizing Grammar: Linguistic Studies for Henk van Riemsdijk, 407–414. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. 2008. Reference to individuals, person, and the variety of mapping parameters. In Müller, H. H. and Klinge, A. (eds.), Essays on Nominal Determination: From Morphology to Discourse Management, 189–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G. 2018. Principles, parameters, and schemata: A radically underspecified UG. Linguistic Analysis 3–4: 517–558.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 1988. Clitics, morphological merger, and the mapping to phonological structure. In Hammond, M. and Noonan, M. (eds.), Theoretical Morphology, 253–270. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, A. 1991. Case and licensing. In Westphal, G., Ao, B., and Chae, H.-R. (eds.), Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, 234–253. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. 1972. Inflectional Morphology: A Theoretical Study Based on Aspects of Latin Verb Conjugation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McDaniel, D. 1989. Partial and multiple wh-movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 7(4): 565–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, G. 2007. Extended exponence by enrichment: Argument encoding in German, Archi, and Timucua. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 13: 253–266.Google Scholar
Muysken, P., and Law, P.. 2001. Creole Studies: A theoretical linguist’s field guide. GLOT International 5(2): 47–57.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. 2005. Against a parameter-setting approach to typological variation. In Pica, P. (ed.), Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2004, 181–234. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nichols, J. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 62(1): 56–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, M. 2017. Description and analyses of nominal concord (Pt I). Language and Linguistics Compass 11(11): e12266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noyer, R. 1997. Features, Positions and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Oltra-Massuet, I. 1999. On the Notion of Theme Vowel: a New Approach to Catalan Verbal Morphology. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Oltra-Massuet, I., and Arregi, K.. 2005. Stress-by-structure in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 36(1): 43–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M. 1983. Studies in Relational Grammar 1. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2010. Linguistic typology and formal grammar. In Song, J.-J. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Typology, 650–665. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.Google Scholar
Ramchand, G. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riedel, K. 2009. The Syntax of Object Marking in Sambaa: A Comparative Perspective. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University. [Utrecht: LOT Dissertations].Google Scholar
Ritter, E., and Wiltschko, M.. 2005. Anchoring events to the utterance without tense. In Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 343–351.Google Scholar
Ritter, E., and Wiltschko, M.. 2009. Varieties of INFL: TENSE, LOCATION, and PERSON. In van Craenenbroeck, J. (ed.), Alternatives to Cartography, 153–202. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, E., and Wiltschko, M.. 2014. The composition of INFL. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 32: 1331–1386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (ed.). 2004. The Structure of CP and IP, vol. 2, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 2010. Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 2012. Macroparameters and minimalism. In Galves, C., Cyrino, S., Lopes, R., Sandalo, F., and Avelar, J. (eds.), Parameter Theory and Linguistic Change, 320–335. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 2014. Subject clitics and macroparameters*. In Benincà, P., Ledgeway, A., and Vincent, N. (eds.), Diachrony and Dialects, 177–201. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 2019. Parameter Hierarchies and Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I., and Holmberg, A.. 2010. Introduction: Parameters in minimalist theory. In Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I., and Sheehan, M. (eds.), Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, 1–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, I., and Roussou, A.. 2003. Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schifano, N. 2015. The paradigmatic instantiation of TAM: A novel approach to Romance verb-movement. In Aboh, E. O., Schaeffer, J., and Sleeman, P. (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory, vol. 8, 83–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schifano, N. 2018. Verb Movement in Romance, vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schifano, N., and Cognola, F.. 2020. From macro to nano: A parametric hierarchy approach to the diatopic and diachronic variation of Italian ben. In Bárány, A., Biberauer, T., Douglas, J., and Vikner, S. (eds.), Syntactic Architecture and Its Consequences I: Syntax inside the Grammar, 233–250. Berlin: Language Science Press. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3972847.Google Scholar
Sheehan, M. 2014. Towards a parameter hierarchy for alignment. In Santana-LaBarge, R. E. (ed.), Proceedings of WCCFL 31, 399–408. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Sheehan, M. (in progress). Case and Agreement Alignment in Romance and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sheehan, M., and van der Wal, J.. 2018. Nominal licensing in caseless languages. Journal of Linguistics 54(3): 527–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonović, M., and Mišmaš, P.. 2022. Lowest theme vowels or highest roots? An “unaccusative” theme-vowel class in Slovenian. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 7(1). https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5809.Google Scholar
Starke, M. 2009. Nanosyntax: A short primer to a new approach to language. Nordlyd 36: 1–6.Google Scholar
Starke, M. 2018. Complex left branches, spellout, and prefixes. In Baunaz, L., De Clercq, K., Haegeman, L., and Lander, E. (eds.), Exploring Nanosyntax, 239–249. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Starke, M., and Cortiula, M.. 2021. Bearing the Brazilian Cross. Revista Virtual de Estudos Da Linguagem – ReVEL 19(18): 9–35.Google Scholar
Takita, K. 2009. If Chinese is head-initial, Japanese cannot be. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 18(1): 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taraldsen, K. T. 2010. The nanosyntax of Nguni noun class prefixes and concords. Lingua 120(6): 1522–1548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taraldsen Medová, L., and Wiland, B.. 2019. Semelfactives are bigger than degree achievements. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 37: 1463–1513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travis, L. deMena. 1984. Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Van Craenenbroeck, J., and Temmerman, T. (eds.). 2018. The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Wal, J. 2022. A Featural Typology of Bantu Agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R. 1992. A synopsis of role and reference grammar. In Van Valin, R. (ed.), Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiltschko, M. 2014. The Universal Structure of Categories: Towards a Formal Typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, S. 2018. Verb Second in Medieval Romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeijlstra, H. 2008. On the syntactic flexibility of formal features. In Biberauer, T. (ed.), The Limits of Syntactic Variation, 143–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.2 AAA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this chapter
complies with version 2.2 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), offering more comprehensive accessibility measures for a broad range
of users and attains the highest
(AAA)
level of WCAG compliance, optimising the user experience by meeting the most extensive
accessibility guidelines.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
Visual Accessibility
Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.