Element contents
Series: Elements in Generative Syntax
Merge and the Strong Minimalist Thesis
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 November 2023
Summary
The goal of this contribution to the Elements series is to closely examine Merge, its form, its function, and its central role in current linguistic theory. It explores what it does (and does not do), why it has the form it has, and its development over time. The basic idea behind Merge is quite simple. However, Merge interacts, in intricate ways, with other components including the language's interfaces, laws of nature, and certain language-specific conditions. Because of this, and because of its fundamental place in the human faculty of language, this Element's focus on Merge provides insights into the goals and development of generative grammar more generally, and its prospects for the future.
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements in Generative SyntaxOnline ISBN: 9781009343244Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 14 December 2023
References
Abels, Klaus. 2012. Phases: An Essay on Cyclicity in Syntax. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark. 2001. The Atoms of Language: The Mind’s Hidden Rules of Grammar. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Berwick, Robert C. and Chomsky, Noam. 2016. Why Only Us: Language and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berwick, Robert C., Pietroski, Paul, Yankama, Beracah, and Chomsky, Noam. 2011. Poverty of the stimulus revisited. Cognitive Science 35, 1207–1242. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01189.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blümel, Andreas. 2014. On forked chains in ATB-movement: Defending and newly implementing a traditional notion. In Kohlberger, Martin, Bellamy, Kate, and Dutton, Eleanor (eds.), Proceedings of ConSOLE XXII, 19–38.Google Scholar
Blümel, Andreas and Holler, Anke. 2022. DP, NP, or neither? Contours of an unresolved debate. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 7: 1. https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.8326.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2003. Exo-skeletal vs. endo-skeletal explanations: Syntactic projections and the lexicon. In Morre, John and Polinsky, Maria (eds.), The Nature of Explanation in Linguistic Theory, 31–67. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publication.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan (ed.). 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chaves, Rui and Putnam, Michael T.. 2020. Unbounded Dependency Constructions: Theoretical and Experimental Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1955. The logical structure of linguistic theory. Ms., Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Revised version published in part by Plenum, New York, 1975.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1956. Three models for the description of language. I. R. E. Transactions on Information Theory, IT-2, Proceedings of the Symposium on Information Theory, September, 113–124.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1959. A review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Language 35:1, 26–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1966a. Cartesian Linguistics. A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1968/2006. Language and Mind. Third Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R. and Rosenbaum, P. (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn & Co.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1980. Rules and Representations. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1982a. Noam Chomsky on the Generative Enterprise: A Discussion with Riny Huybregts and Henk van Riemsdijk. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1982b. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale, Ken and Keyser, Samuel J. (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1994. Bare phrase structure. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT. Reprinted in Webelhuth, Gert (ed.), Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program, 383–439. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
[Bare phrase structure was also published in 1995 in: Evolution and Revolution in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Carlos P. Otero, Campos, Hector and Kempchinsky, Paula (eds.), Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 51–109.]Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowica, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2004a. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Belletti, Adriana (ed.), Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, 104–131. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2004b. Generative Enterprise Revisited: Discussions with Riny Huybregts, Henk van Riemsdijk, Naoki Fukui and Mihoko Zushi. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36:1, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Sauerland, Uli and Gärtner, H.-M. (eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language?, 1–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos, and Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2011. Language and other cognitive systems: What is special about language? Language Learning and Development 7:4, 263–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2012. Where artificial intelligence went wrong. The Atlantic, November 1. www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/noam-chomsky-on-where-artificial-intelligence-went-wrong/261637/.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2015. Problems of projection: Extensions. In DiDomenico, Elisa, Hamann, Cornelia, and Matteini, Simona (eds.), Structures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour of Adriana Belletti, 3–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2017a. The Galilean challenge. Inference 3.1. https://inference-review.com/article/the-galilean-challenge.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2017b. The language capacity: Architecture and evolution. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 24, 200–203. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1078-6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chomsky, Noam. 2019a. Some puzzling foundational issues: The reading program. Catalan Journal of Linguistics Special Issue, 263–285.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2019b. The UCLA lectures. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_BWbEjAUd0. [An edited transcipt of the lecture with an introduction was posted on LingBuzz by Bob Frieden.]Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2020. The UCLA lectures: With an introduction by Bob Freidin. LingBuzz.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2021a. Linguistics then and now: Some personal reflections. Annual Review of Linguistics 7, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-081720-111352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2021b. Minimalism: Where are we now, and where can we hope to go. Gengo Kenkyu 160, 1–41.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2021c. Reflections. In Allott, Nicholas, Lohndal, Terje, and Rey, Georges (eds.), A Companion to Chomsky, 582–594 Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell/Wiley.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2022b. Genuine explanation and the Strong Minimalist Thesis. Talk at MIT, April 1.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. In press . The Miracle Creed and SMT. In Bocci, Giuliano, Botteri, Daniele, Manetti, Claudia, and Moscati, Vicenzo (eds.), Issues in Comparative Morpho-syntax and Language Acquisition.Google Scholar
Noam, Chomsky, Gallego, Ángel J, and Otto, Dennis. 2019. Generative Grammar and the faculty of language: Insights, questions, and challenges. Catalan Journal of Linguistics Special Issue, 229–261.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam and Howard, Lasnik. 1993. The theory of principles and parameters. In Jacobs, Joachim, von Stechow, Arnim, Sternefeld, Wolfgang, and Vennemann, Theo (eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, vol. 1, 506–569. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Reprinted in Chomsky (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam and Moro, Andrea. 2022. The Secrets of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2005. On the nature of Merge: External Merge, Internal Merge, and Parallel Merge. Linguistic Inquiry 36:4, 475–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2011. Symmetry in syntax: Merge, move and labels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2017. Right node raising. In Everaert, Martin and van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citko, Barbara and Gračanin-Yuksek, Martina. 2021. Merge: Binarity in (Multidominant) Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Chris. 2017. Merge(X,Y) = {X,Y}. In Bauke, Leah and Blümel, Andreas (eds.), Labels and Roots, 47–68. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Chris. 2022. The complexity of trees, universal grammar and economy conditions. Biolinguistics 16, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Chris and Daniel Seely, T.. 2020. Labeling without labels. Manuscript. lingbuzz (lingbuzz/005486). [A revised version is to be included in Kleanthes K. Grohmann and Evelina Leivada (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Minimalism.]Google Scholar
Collins, Chris and Stabler, Edward. 2016. A formalization of minimalist syntax. Syntax 19:1, 43–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. and Winkler, Susanne. 2022. Parasitic gaps aren’t parasitic, or, the case of the Uninvited Guest. The Linguistic Review 39:1, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curcio, Christine A., Sloan, Kenneth. R., Kalina, Robert E., and Hendrickson, Anita E.. 1990. Human photo receptor topography. The Journal of Comparative Neurology 292, 497–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1978. Functional Grammar. North-Holland Linguistic Series 37. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Emmorey, Karen. 2002. Language, Cognition and the Brain: Insights from Sign Language Research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Epstein, Samuel D. 1984. Quantifier-PRO and the LF representation of PROARB. Linguistic Inquiry 15:3, 449–505.Google Scholar
Epstein, Samuel D. 2015. On (I)nternalist-functional explanation in Minimalism. In Epstein, Samuel D., Kitahara, Hisatsugu, and Daniel Seely, T. (eds.), Explorations in Maximizing Syntactic Minimization, 71–97. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Samuel D. 2016. Why nurture is natural too. Biolinguistics 10, 197–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Samuel D. and Daniel Seely, T. 2002. Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Samuel D. and Daniel Seely, T. 2006. Derivations in Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Samuel D., Groat, Erich, Kawashima, Ruriko, and Kitahara, Hisatsugu. 1998. A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Samuel D., Kitahara, Hisatsugu, and Daniel Seely, T.. 2012. Structure building that can’t be! In Uribe-Etxebarria, Mryiam and Valmala, Vidal (eds.), Ways of Structure Building, 253–270. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Samuel D., Kitahara, Hisatsugu, and Daniel Seely, T.. 2014. Labeling by minimal search: Implications for successive-cyclic A-movement and the conception of the postulate “phase.” Linguistic Inquiry 45:3, 463–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Samuel D., Kitahara, Hisatsugu, and Daniel Seely, T. 2015. Explorations in Maximizing Syntactic Minimization. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Samuel D., Kitahara, Hisatsugu, and Daniel Seely, T.. 2016. Phase cancellation by external pair-merge of heads. The Linguistic Review 33:1, 87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Samuel D., Kitahara, Hisatsugu, and Daniel Seely, T. 2022. A Minimalist Theory of Simplest Merge. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Epstein, Samuel D., Obata, Miki, and Daniel Seely, T. 2018. Is linguistic variation entirely linguistic? Linguistic Analysis 41:3–4, 481–516.Google Scholar
Everaert, Martin B. H., Huybregts, Marinus A. C., Chomsky, Noam, Berwick, Robert C., and Bolhuis, Johan J.. 2015. Structures, not strings: Linguistics as part of the cognitive sciences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19:12, 729–743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.09.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, H. and Munson, W. A. 1933. Loudness, its definition, measurement and calculation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 5, 82–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fong, Sandiway. 2021. Some third factor limits on Merge. Manuscript. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Fong, Suzana. 2022. Distinguishing between accounts of the A/A’-distinction: The view from Argentinian Spanish Clitic Doubling. Isogloss 8:2, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/isogloss.132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freidin, Robert. 2016. Chomsky’s linguistics: Goals of the generative enterprise. Language 92, 671–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freidin, Robert. 2021. The strong minimalist thesis. Philosophies 6, 97. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies6040097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freidin, Robert and Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 2001. Exquisite connections: Some remarks on the evolution of linguistic theory. Lingua 111:9, 639–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukui, Naoki and Speas, Margaret. 1986. Specifiers and projection. In Rapoport, Tova and Sagey, Elizabeth (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics: Papers in Theoretical Linguistics 8, 128–172. Reprinted in Naoki Fukui. 2006. Theoretical Comparative Syntax: Studies in Macroparameters. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gallego, Ángel J. (ed.). 2012. Phases: Developing the Framework. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallego, Ángel J. 2020. Strong and weak “strict cyclicity” in phase theory. In Bárány, András, Biberauer, Theresa, Douglas, Jamie, and Vikner, Sten (eds.), Syntactic Architecture and Its Consequences II: Between Syntax and Morphology, 207–226. Berlin: Language Science Press. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4280647.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald. , Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoffrey K., and Sag, Ivan A.. 1985. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell, and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken and Jay Keyser, Samuel. 2002. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harizanov, Boris and Gribanova, Vera. 2019. Whither head movement? Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37, 461–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-018-9420-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subject, events and licensing. Doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Harris, Zellig. 1952. Methods in Structural Linguistics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hauser, Marc, Chomsky, Noam, and Fitch, W. Tecumseh. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298, 1569–1579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregory, Hickok, Bellugi, Ursula, and Klima, Edward S.. 1998. The neural organization of language: Evidence from sign language aphasia. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2:4, 129–136.Google Scholar
Hinzen, Wolfram. 2017. Universal grammar and philosophy of mind. In Roberts, Ian (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Universal Grammar, 37–60. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heil, Jeanne and Ebert, Shane. 2018. Extra-syntactic factors in the that-trace effect. In Contemporary Trends in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, ed. by Jonathan E. MacDonald, p309–332. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30:1, 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2003. On control. In Hendrick, Randall (ed.), Minimalist Syntax, 6–81. Oxford: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470758342.ch1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huybregts, M. A. C. (Riny) 1984. The weak inadequacy of context-free phrase structure grammars. In de Haan, G., Trommelen, M., and Zonneveld, W. (eds.), Van Periferie naar Kern, 81–99. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Huybregts, M. A. C. (Riny) 2017. Phonemic clicks and the mapping asymmetry: How language emerged and speech developed. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 81, Part B, 279–294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huybregts, M. A. C. (Riny) 2019. Infinite generation of language unreachable from a stepwise approach. Frontiers in Psychology 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00425.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huybregts, M. A. C. (Riny), Berwick, Robert, and Bolhuis, Johan J.. 2016. The language within. Science 352:6291, 1286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel. 2009. On the composite nature of subject islands: A phase-based approach. SKY Journal of Linguistics 22, 91–138.Google Scholar
Johnson, Kyle. 1991. Object positions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9:4, 577–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1981. Unambiguous paths. In May, R. and Koster, J. (eds.), Levels of Syntactic Representation, 143–183. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard 1984. Connectedness and Binary Branches. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hezao, Ke. 2019. The syntax, semantics and processing of agreement and binding grammatical illusions. Doctoral dissertation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Hezao, Ke. 2022. Can Agree and Labeling be reduced to Minimal Search? Linguistic Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitahara, Hisatsugu. 1995. Target alpha: Deducing strict cyclicity from derivational economy. Linguistic Inquiry 26:1, 47–77.Google Scholar
Kitahara, Hisatsugu. 1997. Elementary Operations and Optimal Derivations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kitahara, Hisatsugu and Seely, Daniel T.. 2021. Structure building under MERGE. Poster presented at WCCFL 39. [A revised version, entitled “Merge and the Formal Recognition of the Workspace” is to be included in Grohmann, Kleanthes K. and Leivada, Evelina (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Minimalism.]Google Scholar
Kitahara, Hisatsugu and Daniel, T. Seely. In press. Merge and the formal recognition of the Workspace. In Grohmann, Kleanthes K. and Leivada, Evelina (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Minimalism.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 1973. Fluxions, limits, and infinite littleness: A study of Newton’s presentation of the calculus. Isis 64, 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klima, Edward S., Hickok, Gregory, and Bellugi, Ursula. 2002. Sign language in the brain: How does the human brain process language? New studies of deaf signers hint at an answer. Scientific American.Google Scholar
Kluck, Marlies. 2011. Sentence amalgamation. Doctoral dissertation. Groningen: University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Kluender, Robert. 2004. Are subject islands subject to a processing account? In Chand, Vineeta, Kelleher, Ann, Rodríguez, Angelo J., and Schmeiser, Benjamin (eds.), WCCFL 23: Proceedings of the 23rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 475–499. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1993. Object agreement phrases and the split VP hypothesis. In Bobaljik, Jonathan D. and Phillips, Colin (eds.), Papers on Case and Agreement I: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18, 99–148. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1995. Phrase structure in minimalist syntax. Doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Serving the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, Johan and Zaring, Laurie (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol. 33, 109–137. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8617-7_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2007. Movement-resistant aspects of control. In Davies, William D. and Dubinsky, Stanley (eds.), New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising, 293–325. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2013. Control in Generative Grammar: A Research Companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 2002. Clause-mate conditions revisited. Glot International 6:4, 94–96.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 2011. What kind of computing device is the human language faculty? In Maria, Anna and Boeckx, Cedric (eds.), The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty, 354–365. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 2022. On optionality: A brief history and a case study. Talk at First Biolinguistic Conference of the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, June 24–26.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard and Kupin, Joseph J.. 1977. A restrictive theory of transformational grammar. Theoretical Linguistics 4, 173–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard and Saito, Mamoru. 1984. On the nature of proper government. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 235–289.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru, Saito. 1991. On the subject of infinitives. In Dobrin, Lise M., Nichols, Lynn, and Rodriguez, Rosa M. (eds.), Papers from the 27th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Part 1: The General Session, 324–343. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard and Saito, Mamoru. 1992. Move Alpha: Conditions on Its Application and Output. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David. 1988. Language Acquisition and the Form of the Grammar. Doctoral dissertation. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, Eric. 1967. Biological Foundations of Language. New York: John Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane C. 1991. Universal Grammar and American Sign Language: Setting the Null Argument Parameters. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohndal, Terje. 2014. Phrase Structure and Argument Structure: A Case-Study of the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matilde, Marcolli, Chomsky, Noam, and Berwick., Robert C. In press. Mathematical structure of syntactic Merge.Google Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. 2005. Going through a phase. In McGinnis, Martha and Richards, Norvin (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49: Perspectives on Phases, 157–181. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37:1, 69–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James. 1968. The role of semantics in grammar. In Bach, Emmon and Harms, Robert (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 125–170. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Mehler, Jacques and Dupoux, Emmanuel. 1994. What infants know: The new cognitive science of early development. Translated by Patsy Southgate. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2018. Ellipsis: A survey of analytical approaches. In van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen and Temmerman, Tanja (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ellipsis, 19–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Miliorini, Rafaela. 2019. Extraction from weak islands: Alternatives to the argument/adjunct distinction. Revista Virtual de Estudos da Linguagem, edição especial 17:16, 37–58.Google Scholar
Miller, George and Noam, Chomsky. 1963. Finitary models of language users. In Luce, Robert D., Bush, Robert, and Galanter, Eugene (eds.), Handbook of Mathematical Psychology II, 419–491. New York: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Moro, Andrea. 1997. Dynamic Antisymmetry: Movement as a Symmetry-breaking Phenomenon. Studia Linguistica 51(1), pp. 50–76. Blackwell Publishers. Oxford, UK and Malden, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moro, Andrea. 2000. Dynamic Antisymmetry, Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Namboodiripad, Savithry, Cuneo, Nicole, Kramer, Matthew A., et al. 2022. Backgroundedness predicts island status of non-finite adjuncts in English. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 44. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/236280w2.Google Scholar
Nash, Neonard K. 1963. The Nature of the Natural Sciences. Boston. MA: Little, Brown.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Neil, John. 1995. Out of control. North East Linguistics Society 25, Article 25. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/nels/vol25/iss1/25.Google Scholar
O’Neil, John. 1997. Means of control: Deriving the properties of PRO in the minimalist program. Doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Obata, Miki. 2010. Root, Successive-Cyclic and Feature-Splitting Internal Merge: Implications for Feature-Inheritance and Transfer. Doctoral dissertation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
.Obata, Miki and David Epstein, Samuel. 2011. Feature-Splitting Internal Merge: Improper movement, intervention, and the A/A’ distinction. Syntax 14:2, 122–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petitto, Laura Anne. 1987. On the autonomy of language and gesture: Evidence from the acquisition of personal pronouns in American Sign Language. Cognition 27:1, 1–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
.Petitto, Laura Anne. 2005. How the brain begets language. In McGilvray, James (ed.), The Chomsky Reader, 85–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ragsdale, Aaron, Weaver, Timothy D., Atkinson, Elizabeth G., et al. 2023. A weakly structured stem for human origins in Africa. Nature 617, 755–763. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06055-y.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reinhart, Tanya. 1976. The syntactic domain of anaphora. Doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Definite NP anaphora and c-command domains. Linguistic Inquiry 12:4, 605–635.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1998. Trees and scions: Science and trees. In Fest-Web-Page for Noam Chomsky. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk. 2006. Grafts follow from merge. In Frascarelli, Mara (ed.), Phases of Interpretation, 17–44. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2019. Parameter Hierarchies and Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter S. 1967. The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy and Lillo-Martin, Diane C.. 2006. Sign Language and Linguistic Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sedarous, Yourdanis. 2022. An experimental study on the syntax of English and Egyptian Arabic: A unified account of bilingual grammatical knowledge. Doctoral dissertation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Seely, Daniel T. 2006. Merge, derivational c-command, and subcategorization in a label-free syntax. In Boeckx, Cedric (ed.), Minimalist Essays, 182–217. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shi, Rushen, Legrand, Camille, and Brandenberger, Anna. 2020. Toddlers track hierarchical structure dependence. Language Acquisition 27:4, 397–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shieber, Stuart M. 1985. Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 8: 333–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sichel, Ivy. 2018. Anatomy of a counterexample: Extraction from relative clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 49:2, 335–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 1987. Combinatory grammars and parasitic gaps. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5, 403–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tancredi, Christopher. 1992. Deletion, deaccenting, and presupposition. Doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Testa-Silva, Guilherme, Verhoog, Matthijs B., Linaro, Daniele, et al. 2014. High bandwidth synaptic communication and frequency tracking in human neocortex. PLOS Biology 12: 11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, D’Arcy W. 1917. On Growth and Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinsley, J. N., Molodstov, M. U., Prevedel, R., D., et al. 2016. Direct detection of a single photon by humans. Nature Communications 7: 12172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Truswell, Robert. 2011. Events, Phrases, and Questions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turing, Alan. 1952. The chemical basis of morphogenesis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 237: 641, 37–72.Google Scholar
van Urk, Coppe. 2015. A uniform syntax for phrasal movement: A case study of Dinka Bor. Doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
van Urk, Coppe. 2020. Successive cyclicity and the syntax of long-distance dependencies. Annual Review of Linguistics 6, 111–130. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-012318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vries, Mark. 2009. On multidominance and linearization. Biolinguistics 4:3, 344–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wackermannová, Marie, Pinc, Ludvik, & Jebavý, L.. 2016. Olfactory sensitivity in mammalian species. Physiological Research 65, 369–390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wheeler, J. A. 1989. “Information, Physics, Quantum: The search for links.” Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Tokyo: 354–368. https://philpapers.org/archive/WHEIPQ.pdfGoogle Scholar
Yang, Charles. 2002. Knowledge and Learning in Natural Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yang, Charles. 2004. Universal Grammar, statistics or both? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8:10, 451–456.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Accessibility standard: Unknown
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
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this Element is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 57
- Cited by