Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T11:56:40.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Locative Inversion and the Architecture of Universal Grammar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Joan Bresnan
Joan Bresnan*
Affiliation:
Stanford University
*
Center for the Study of Language and, Information, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4115
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Locative inversion in English and Chicheŵa shows remarkable similarities which can be explained by hypothesizing the same underlying argument structures and principles for mapping argument structure roles into syntactic functions. However, the alignment of roles with syntactic categories reflects a profound typological difference between the two languages: Chicheŵa categorizes locatives in a gender class system; English, in an abstract case-like system. The resulting syntactic differences defy analyses within a widely-assumed architecture of Universal Grammar and support the alternative adopted by Bresnan & Kanerva 1989.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 70 , Issue 1 , March 1994, pp. 72 - 131
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 by Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aissen, Judith. 1975. Presentational-there insertion: A cyclic root transformation. Chicago Linguistic Society 11.1–14.Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith, and Hankamer, Jorge. 1972. Shifty subjects: A conspiracy in syntax? Linguistic Inquiry 3.501–4.Google Scholar
Allan, Keith. 1977. Classifiers. Lg. 53.285–311.Google Scholar
Alsina, Alex. 1990. Where's the mirror principle? Evidence from Chicheŵa. (Paper presented at the 13th Generative Linguistics in the Old World Colloquium at St. John's College, Cambridge University, April 6–8, 1990.) Levels of Representation, ed. by Chao, Wynn and Horrocks, Geoffrey. Dordrecht: Foris, to appear.Google Scholar
Alsina, Alex. 1992. On the argument structure of causatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23.517–55.Google Scholar
Alsina, Alex. 1993. Predicate composition: A theory of syntactic function alternations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Alsina, Alex, and Joshi, Smita. 1991. Parameters in causative constructions. Chicago Linguistic Society 27.1–15.Google Scholar
Joshi, Smita, and Mchombo, Sam A. 1988. Lexical mapping in the Chicheŵa applicative construction. Stanford & Berkeley, CA: Stanford University & University of California, ms.Google Scholar
Joshi, Smita. 1990. The syntax of applicatives in Chicheŵa: Problems for a theta theoretic asymmetry. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8.493–506.Google Scholar
Joshi, Smita. 1993. Object asymmetries and the Chicheŵa applicative construction. Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, ed. by Mchombo, Sam A., 17–45. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Andrews, Avery. 1982. The representation of case in Modern Icelandic. In Bresnan 1982a, 427–503.Google Scholar
Andrews, Avery. 1985. The major functions of the noun phrase. Language typology and syntactic description, vol. I: Clause structure, ed. by Shopen, Timothy, 62–154. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Andrews, Avery. 1990a. Case structures and control in Modern Icelandic. Syntax and semantics 24: Modern Icelandic syntax, ed. by Maling, Joan and Zaenen, Annie, 187–234. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Avery. 1990b. Unification and morphological blocking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8.507–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Avery, and Manning, Christopher. 1993. Information spreading and levels of representation in LFG. Report No. CSLI-93–176. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Austin, Peter. 1992. Transitivity alternations in Australian aboriginal languages. Theoretical linguistics and Australian aboriginal languages, ed. by Austin, Peter and Blake, Barry, to appear.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988. Theta theory and the syntax of applicatives in Chicheŵa. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6.353–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1991. On some subject/object non-asymmetries in Mohawk. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9.537–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 1988. The case of unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry 19.1–34.Google Scholar
Bennis, Hans. 1986. Gaps and dummies. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Birner, Betty Jean. 1992. The discourse function of inversion in English. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University dissertation.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1971. A further note on the nominal in the progressive. Linguistic Inquiry 2.584–6.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Meaning and form. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bowers, John S. 1976. On surface structure grammatical relations and the structure-preserving hypothesis. Linguistic Analysis 2.225–42.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1976. Nonarguments for raising. Linguistic Inquiry 7.485–501.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1977. Variables in the theory of transformations. Formal syntax, ed. by Culicover, Peter, Wasow, Thomas, and Akmajian, Adrian, 157–96. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan (ed.) 1982a. The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982b. The passive in lexical theory. In Bresnan 1982a, 3–86.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982c. Control and complementation. Linguistic Inquiry 13.343–434. [Reprinted in Bresnan 1982a, 282–390.]Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1989. The syntactic projection problem and the comparative syntax of locative inversion. Journal of Information Science and Engineering (Special issue devoted to the Proceedings of ROCLING II, Taipei, 1989) 5.287–303. Taiwan: Institute of Information Science, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1991. Locative case vs. locative gender. Berkeley Linguistics Society 17.53–68.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Kanerva, Jonni M. 1989. Locative inversion in Chicheŵa: A case study of factorization in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 20.1–50. [Reprinted in Stowell & Wehrli, 53–101.]Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1992. The thematic hierarchy and locative inversion in UG. A reply to Paul Schachter's comments. In Stowell & Wehrli, 111–25.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Mchombo, Samuel A. 1987. Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chicheŵa. Lg. 63.741–82.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1989. What's in a Bantu word? On the syntax of Bantu noun class prefixes. Paper presented at the Colloquium on Grammatical Agreement in Bantu, 20th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1993. The lexical integrity principle: Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, to appear.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Moshi, Lioba. 1990. Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 21.147–85.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Zaenen, Annie. 1990. Deep unaccusativity in LFG. Grammatical relations: A cross-theoretical perspective, ed. by Dziwirek, K. et al., 45–57. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1981. Intransitive verbs and Italian auxiliaries. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstens, Vicki May. 1991. The morphology and syntax of determiner phrases in Kiswahili. Los Angeles, CA: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Coopmans, Peter. 1989. Where stylistic and syntactic processes meet: Locative inversion in English. Lg. 65.728–51.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine. 1990. Locatives, impersonate and expletives in Sesotho. The Linguistic Review 7.233–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demuth, Katherine, and Mmusi, Sheila. 1992. Syntactic, morphological, and thematic characteristics of Setswana presentational focus constructions. Paper presented at the 23rd Conference on African Linguistics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Falk, Yehuda N. 1983. Subjects and long-distance dependencies. Linguistic Analysis 12.245–70.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The case for case. Universals in linguistic theory, ed. by Bach, Emmon and Harms, Robert T., 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald. 1981. Unbounded dependencies and coordinate structure. Linguistic Inquiry 12.155–84.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1976. Topic, pronoun, and grammatical agreement. Subject and topic, ed. by Li, Charles N., 149–88. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John. 1979. On the thematic nature of see. Linguistic Inquiry 10.347–52.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia M. 1976. Main clause phenomena in subordinate clauses. Lg. 52.382–97.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia M. 1980. Some wherefores of English inversions. Lg. 56.582–601.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia M. 1985. The description of inversions in Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 11.117–45.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1982. Subcategorization and grammatical relations. Subjects and other subjects: Proceedings of the Harvard Conference on the Representation of Grammatical Relations, December, 1981, ed. by Zaenen, Annie, 35–55. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1991. Extended projections. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University, ms.Google Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey. 1967. Look and see. Lg. 43.937–47.Google Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey. 1976. Lexical structures in syntax and semantics. New York: American Elsevier.Google Scholar
Guéron, Jacqueline. 1980. The syntax and semantics of PP-extraposition. Linguistic Inquiry 11.637–78.Google Scholar
Harford, Carolyn. 1989. Locative inversion in Chishona. Current approaches to African linguistics, vol. 7, ed. by Hutchison, John P. and Manfredi, Victor, 137–44. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Hetzron, Robert. 1971. Presentative function and presentative movement. Studies in African Linguistics, Supplement 2, 79–105.Google Scholar
Hetzron, Robert. 1975. The presentative movement, or why the ideal word order is VSOP. Word order and word order change, ed. by Li, Charles N., 345–88. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun, and René, Mulder. 1990. Unergatives as copular verbs: Locational and existential predication. Linguistic Review 7.1–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooper, J. B., and Thompson, Sandra A. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4.465–97.Google Scholar
Huang, Chu-Ren. 1993. Mandarin Chinese and the Lexical Mapping Theory: A study of the interaction of morphology and argument changing. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology 62/2. 337–88.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry, and Duranti, Alessandro. 1982. On the object relation in Bantu. Syntax and semantics 15: Studies in transitivity, ed. by Hopper, Paul and Thompson, Sandra. 217–23. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Iwakura, Kunihiro. 1978. On root transformations and the structure-preserving hypothesis. Linguistic Analysis 4.321–64.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1976. Toward an explanatory semantic representation. Linguistic Inquiry 7.89–150.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1987. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18.369–411.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1993. On the role of conceptual structure in argument selection: A reply to Emonds. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11.279–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo, and Safir, Kenneth J. 1989. The null subject parameter and parametric theory. The null subject parameter, ed. by Jaeggli, Osvaldo and Safir, Kenneth J., 1–44. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaworska, Ewa. 1986. Prepositional phrases as subjects and object. Journal of Linguistics 22.355–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1927. A modern English grammar on historical principles, Part III: Syntax, vol. 2. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Joshi, Smita. 1993. Selection of subjects and objects in Marathi. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Kac, Michael B. 1978. Corepresentation of grammatical structure. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaisse, Ellen M. 1985. Connected speech: The interaction of syntax and phonology. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kanerva, Jonni M. 1990a. Focusing on phonological phrases in Chicheŵa. The phonology-syntax connection, ed. by Inkelas, Sharon and Zec, Draga, 145–61. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kanerva, Jonni M. 1990b. Focus and phrasing in Chicheŵa phonology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M., and Bresnan, Joan. 1982 (1980). Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In Bresnan 1982a, 173–281. [First published in 1980 as Occasional Paper No. 13. Cambridge, MA: The Center for Cognitive Science, MIT.]Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M., and Maxwell, John T. 1988. An algorithm for functional uncertainty. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING '88), 297–302.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M., and Zaenen, Annie. 1989. Long-distance dependencies, constituent structure, and functional uncertainty. Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, ed. by Baltin, Mark and Kroch, Anthony, 17–42. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
King, Tracy. 1993. Configuring topic and focus in Russian. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda, and Sportiche, Dominique. 1985. Theta theory and extraction. GLOW Newsletter 14.57–8.Google Scholar
Kroeger, Paul. 1993. Phrase structure and grammatical relations in Tagalog. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1971. The position of locatives in existential sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 2.333–78.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Shige-Yuki. 1988. Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. Papers from the Second International Workshop on Japanese Syntax, ed. by Poser, William, 103–43. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Ross, John Robert. 1976 (1966). Why you can't do so into the sink. Syntax and semantics 7: Notes from the linguistic underground, ed. by McCawley, James D., 101–12. New York: Academic Press. [Circulated in 1966.]Google Scholar
Langendoen, D. Terence. 1973. The problem of grammatical relations in surface structure. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics: Language and international studies, ed. by Jankowsky, K. R., 27–37. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Langendoen, D. Terence. 1979. More on locative-inversion sentences and the structure-preserving hypothesis. Linguistic Analysis 5.421–37.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1982. Universal and typological aspects of agreement. Apprehension, vol. II, ed. by Seiler, H. and Stachowiak, F. J., 201–67. Tübingen: Narr.Google ScholarPubMed
Lehmann, Christian. 1988. On the function of agreement. Agreement in natural language: Approaches, theories, descriptions, ed. by Barlow, Michael and Ferguson, Charles A., 56–65. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1991. Locative inversion: A problem for the unaccusative hypothesis? Evanston, IL: Northwestern University, ms.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Rappaport, Malka. 1986. The formation of adjectival passives. Linguistic Inquiry 17.623–61.Google Scholar
Rappaport, Malka, and Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1992. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-semantics interface (Nov. 1992 draft). Evanston, IL, & Ramat Gan, Israel: Northwestern University & Bar Ilan University, ms.Google Scholar
Levin, Lorraine. 1985. Operations on lexical forms: Unaccusative rules in Germanic languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Levine, Robert D. 1989. On focus inversion: Syntactic valence and the role of a subcat list. Linguistics 17.1013–55.Google Scholar
Li, Y.-H. Audrey. 1990. Order and constituency in Mandarin Chinese. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lumsden, Michael. 1988. Existential sentences: Their structure and meaning. New York: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1971. Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Machobane, 'Malillo. 1992. The Sesotho locative constructions. Roma, Lesotho: National University of Lesotho, ms.Google Scholar
Maling, Joan. 1983. Transitive adjectives: A case of categorial reanalysis. Linguistic categories: Auxiliaries and related puzzles, vol. 1: Categories, ed. by Heny, Frank and Richards, Barry, 253–89. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Richards, Barry, and Zaenen, Annie. 1978. The nonuniversality of a surface filter. Linguistic Inquiry 9.475–97.Google Scholar
McCawley, Noriko. 1977. What is the ‘emphatic root transformation’ phenomenon? Chicago Linguistic Society 13.384–400.Google Scholar
Mchombo, Sam A. 1992. Reciprocalization in Chicheŵa: A lexical account. Linguistic Analysis 21.3–22.Google Scholar
Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential sentences in English. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. 1982. Grammatical relations and clause structure in Malayalam. In Bresnan 1982a, 504–89.Google Scholar
Mohanan, Tara. 1990. Arguments in Hindi. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Mohanan, Tara. 1993. Case alternation on objects in Hindi. South Asian Language Review 3.1–30.Google Scholar
Mohanan, Tara. 1994. Wordhood and lexicality: Noun incorporation in Hindi. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, Scott. 1987. Tone and the structure of words in Shona. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Netter, Klaus. 1988. Syntactic aspects of LFG-based dialogue parsing, ESPRIT ACORD project 393, Deliverable Task 2.7'(a). Stuttgart: Institut für Maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung, University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Netter, Klaus, and Kärcher, Ursula. 1986. Documentation of the German grammar, ESPRIT ACORD project 393, Deliverable Task 1.4. Stuttgart: Institut für Maschinelle Sprach Verarbeitung, University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Netter, Klaus, and Rohrer, Christian. 1987. Syntactic analysis in Lexical Functional Grammar: The example of German prepositional phrases. T. A. Informations, Revue International du Traitement Automatique du Langage (Numéro spéciale “Linguistique et Informatique en République Fédérale Allemande”, ed. by Metzing, Dieter) 28.71–95.Google Scholar
Orr, Gregory John, and Scotton, Carol Myers. 1980. Learning Chicheŵa, Books l and 2. (Peace Corps language course, African Studies Center, Michigan State University.) East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
Penhallurick, John. 1984. Full-verb inversion in English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 4.33–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez (Harford), Carolyn. 1983. Locative pseudo-subjects in Shona. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 5.131–55.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1983. Personal vs. impersonal constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1.141–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David, and Zaenen, Annie. 1984. The indefinite extraposition construction in Dutch and German. Studies in Relational Grammar 2, ed. by Perlmutter, David M. and Rosen, Carol G., 171–216. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Picallo, M. Carme. 1984. The Infi node and the null subject parameter. Linguistic Inquiry 15.75–102.Google Scholar
Picallo, M. Carme. 1990. Modal verbs in Catalan. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8.285–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1984. Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition. The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer. 1987. The Scandinavian languages and the null-subject parameter. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5.377–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1977. About a ‘nonargument’ for raising. Linguistic Inquiry 8.141–54.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey N.; and Svartvik, Jan. 1972. A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Rochemont, Michael S. 1978. A theory of stylistic rules in English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Rochemont, Michael S. 1986. Focus in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rochemont, Michael S., and Culicover, Peter W. 1990. English focus constructions and the theory of grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1974. There, there (there, (there, (there, ...))). Chicago Linguistic Society 10.569–87.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. 1991. Autolexical syntax: A theory of parallel grammatical representations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Safir, Kenneth J. 1985a. Missing subjects in German. Linguistic theory and the grammar of German, ed. by Toman, Jindřich, 193–229. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Safir, Kenneth J. 1985b. Syntactic chains. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Saiki, Mariko. 1985. On the coordination of gapped constituents in Japanese. Chicago Linguistic Society 21.371–87.Google Scholar
Saiki, Mariko. 1986. A new look at Japanese relative clauses: A Lexical Functional Grammar approach. Descriptive and Applied Linguistics (Bulletin of the ICU Summer Institute in Linguistics) 19.219–30. Tokyo: International Christian University.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1992. Comments on the paper by Bresnan and Kanerva. In Stowell & Wehrli, 103–10.Google Scholar
Simpson, Jane. 1983. Topics in Warlpiri morphology and syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Simpson, Jane. 1991. Warlpiri morpho-syntax: A lexicalist approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speas, Margaret J. 1990. Phrase structure in natural language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stowell, Timothy. 1981. The origins of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Stowell, Timothy, and Wehrli, Eric (eds.) 1992. Syntax and semantics 26: Syntax and the lexicon. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tan, Fu. 1991. The notion of subject in Chinese. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1980. On complementation in Icelandic. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
VanDevelde, Robert. 1977. Mistaken views of see. Linguistic Inquiry 8.767–72.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1981. Case marking and human nature. Australian Journal of Linguistics 1.43–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 1987. An ECP account of constraints on across-the-board extraction. Linguistic Inquiry 18.166–71.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie. 1994. Unaccusativity in Dutch: An integrated approach. Semantics and the lexicon, ed. by Pustejovsky, James. Dordrecht: Kluwer, to appear.Google Scholar