No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
English Filler-Gap Constructions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 February 2026
Abstract
This article delineates and analyzes the syntactic and semantic parameters of variation exhibited by English filler-gap constructions. It demonstrates that a detailed, fully explicit account of the observed variation is available within a framework embracing the notion ‘grammatical construction’. This account, which explicates similarities and differences among topicalization, interrogatives, relatives, exclamatives, and comparative correlatives in terms of linguistic types and hierarchical constraint inheritance, is articulated in detail within the framework of sign-based construction grammar (SBCG), a version of head-driven phrase structure grammar (HPSG) integrating key insights from Berkeley construction grammar. The results presented here stand as a challenge to any analysis incorporating transformational operations, especially proposals couched within Chomsky's ‘Minimalist program’.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2010 Linguistic Society of America
References
Abeillé, Anne, and Borsley, Robert D.. 2008. Comparative correlatives and parameters. Lingua 118. 1139–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abeillé, Anne, Borsley, Robert D.; and Espinal, Maria-Teresa. 2006. The syntax of comparative correlatives in French and Spanish. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, ed. by Müller, Stefan, 6–26. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Abels, Klaus. 2008. Factivity in exclamatives as a presupposition. London: University College London, ms.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell, and Webelhuth, Gert. 1998. A theory of predicates. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Akmajian, Adrian. 1984. Sentence types and the form-function fit. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2. 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allegranza, Valerio. 1998. Determiners as functors: NP structure in Italian. Romance in head-driven phrase structure grammar (CSLI lecture notes 75), ed. by Balari, Sergio and Dini, Luca, 55–108. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Aloni, Maria, Butler, Alastair; and Dekker, Paul (eds.) 2006. Questions in dynamic semantics. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Arnold, Doug, and Borsley, Robert D.. 2008. Non-restrictive relative clauses, ellipsis and anaphora. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, ed. by Müller, Stefan, 325–45. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L. 1970. Indirect questions in English. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign dissertation.Google Scholar
Barwise, Jon, and Perry, John. 1983. Situations and attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books. [Reprinted in the David Hume series, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 1999.]Google Scholar
Barwise, Jon, and Perry, John. 1985. Shifting situations and shaken attitudes. Linguistics and Philosophy 8. 399–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Sigrid. 1997. On the semantics of comparative conditionals. Linguistics and Philosophy 20. 229–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, Hans, and Sag, Ivan A. (eds.) 2011. Sign-based construction grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, to appear.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert D. 2004. An approach to English comparative correlatives. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, ed. by Müller, Stefan, 70–92. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert D. 2006. Syntactic and lexical approaches to unbounded dependencies. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 49. 31–57.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert D. 2007. Hang on again! Are we ‘on the right track‘? Essex Research Reports in Linguistics: Martin Atkinson: The minimalist muse 53. 43–70.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert D., and Newmeyer, Frederick J.. 2009. On subject-auxiliary inversion and the notion ‘purely formal generalization’. Cognitive Linguistics 20. 135–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouma, Gosse, Malouf, Rob; and Sag, Ivan A.. 2001. Satisfying constraints on extraction and adjunction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1. 1–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brasoveanu, Adrian. 2008. Comparative and equative correlatives as anaphora to differentials. Poster presented at Semantics and Linguistic Theory 18 (University of Massachusetts Amherst) and at the 9th Semfest, Stanford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caponigro, Ivano, and Polinsky, Maria. 2008. Relatively speaking (in Circassian). West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 27. 81–89.Google Scholar
Castroviejo Miró, Elena. 2006. Wh-exclamatives in Catalan. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona dissertation.Google Scholar
Chae, Hee-Rahk. 1992. Lexically triggered unbounded discontinuities in English: An indexed phrase structure grammar approach. Columbus: The Ohio State University dissertation.Google Scholar
Chaves, Rui P. 2010. On the grammar of extraction and coordination. Buffalo, NY: University at Buffalo, ms.Google Scholar
Chaves, Rui P., and Sag, Ivan A.. 2010. Left- and right-peripheral ellipsis in coordinate and non-coordinate structures. Buffalo, NY: University at Buffalo, and Stanford, CA: Stanford University, ms.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1955. The logical structure of linguistic theory. Cambridge, MA: Society of Fellows, Harvard University, ms. [Published, New York: Plenum, 1975; now available from the University of Chicago Press.]Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. by Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1997. Language and mind: Current thoughts on ancient problems. Contributed to the on-line conference The 40th Anniversary of Generativism. [Published, Pesquisa Linguística 3.4, 1997.]Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Lasnik, Howard. 1993. Principles and parameters theory. Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. by Jacobs, Joachim, von Stechow, Arnim, and Sternefeld, Wolfgang, 506–69. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 1982. Unbounded dependencies in Chamorro grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 13. 39–77.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 1995. Wh-agreement and ‘referentiality’ in Chamorro. Linguistic Inquiry 25. 1–44.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Alex, and Lappin, Shalom. 2010. Linguistic nativism and the poverty of the stimulus. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Clements, George N. 1984. Binding domains in Kikuyu. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 14. 37–56.Google Scholar
Cooper, Robin, and Ginzburg, Jonathan. 1996. A compositional situation semantics for attitude reports. Logic, language, and computation, ed. by Seligman, Jerry and Westerståhl, Dag, 151–65. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Copestake, Ann. 2001. Implementing typed feature structure grammars. (CSLI lecture notes 110.) Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter. 1971. Syntactic and semantic investigations. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter. 1999. Syntactic nuts: Hard cases, syntactic theory and language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter, and Jackendoff, Ray. 1999. The view from the periphery. Linguistic Inquiry 40. 543–71.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter, and Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, Kaplan, Ronald; and King, Tracy Holloway. 2008. The absence of traces: Evidence from weak crossover. Architectures, rules, and preferences: Variations on themes by Joan W. Bresnan, ed. by Zaenen, Annie, Simpson, Jane, King, Tracy Holloway, Grimshaw, Jane, Maling, Joan, and Manning, Christopher, 85–102. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 1996. Locality in WH quantification: Questions and relative clauses in Hindi. (Studies in linguistics and philosophy 62.) Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 2005. Comparative correlatives comparatively. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 497–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Marie, and Williams, Edwin. 1987. On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 1990. Verb movement and the subject position in Yiddish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8. 41–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donohue, Mark. 2003. Review of The design of agreement: Evidence from Chamorro, by Chung, Sandra. Linguistic Typology 7. 285–92.Google Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabet, and Ejerhed, Eva (eds.) 1982. Readings on unbounded dependencies in Scandinavian languages. Stockholm: Acta Universitatis Umensis, and Umeøa: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, and Levinson, Stephen. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32.5.429–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fillmore, Charles J. 1986a. Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. Berkeley Linguistics Society 12. 95–107.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1986b. Varieties of conditional sentences. Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) 3. 163–82.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1999. Inversion and constructional inheritance. Lexical and constructional aspects of linguistic explanation, ed. by Webelhuth, Gert, Koenig, Jean-Pierre, and Kathol, Andreas, 113–28. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul; and O'Connor, Mary C.. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64. 501–38.Google Scholar
Flickinger, Daniel P. 1987. Lexical rules in the hierarchical lexicon. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Flickinger, Daniel P. 2000. On building a more efficient grammar by exploiting types. Natural Language Engineering 6. 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flickinger, Daniel P., Pollard, Carl J.; and Wasow, Thomas. 1985. A computational semantics for natural language. Proceedings of the 23rd annual meeting of the ACL, 262–67, Chicago, IL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Janet D. 1992. Islands, learnability and the lexicon. Island constraints: Theory, acquisition and processing, ed. by Goodluck, Helen and Rochemont, Michael, 109–80. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Gawron, Mark, and Peters, Stanley. 1990. Anaphora and quantification in situation semantics. (CSLI lecture notes 19.) Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald. 1980. A phrase structure syntax for comparative clauses. Lexical grammar, ed. by Hoekstra, Teun, van, Harry Hulst, der, and Moortgat, Michael, 165–79. Dordrecht: Foris. [Also published in GLOT 2.319–93, 1979.]Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald. 1981. Unbounded dependencies and coordinate structure. Linguistic Inquiry 12. 155–84.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
Gazdar, Gerald, Pullum, Geoffrey K., Sag, Ivan A.; and Wasow, Thomas. 1982. Coordination and transformational grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 13.4.663–77.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68. 1–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, Edward. 2000. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. Image, language, brain, ed. by O'Neil, Wayne, Miyashita, Yasushi, and Marantz, Alec, 95–126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan. 1995a. Resolving questions, I. Linguistics and Philosophy 18. 459–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan. 1995b. Resolving questions, II. Linguistics and Philosophy 18. 567–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan, and Sag, Ivan A.. 2000. Interrogative investigations: The form, meaning, and use of English interrogatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2009. Constructions work. Cognitive Linguistics 20. 201–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E., and Jackendoff, Ray. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80. 532–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, John. 1985. A principled exception to the coordinate structure constraint. Chicago Linguistic Society 21.1.133–43.Google Scholar
Goodall, Grant. 1987. Parallel structures in syntax: Coordination, causatives, and restructuring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Stokhof, Martin. 1997. Questions. Handbook of logic and language, ed. by Benthem, Johan van and Meulen, Alice ter, 1055–124. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, and Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip. 2007. Facilitating memory retrieval in natural language comprehension. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip, and Sag, Ivan A.. 2010. Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language 86. 366–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hornstein, Norbert, Nunes, Jairo; and Grohmann, Kleanthes K.. 2005. Understanding minimalism. (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics.) New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney D., and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 2000. Grammar without functional categories. The nature and function of syntactic categories, ed. by Borsley, Robert, 7–35. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hukari, Thomas E., and Levine, Robert D.. 1995. Adjunct extraction. Journal of Linguistics 31. 195–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, Rodney. 1975. A semantics for superficial and embedded questions in natural language. Formal semantics of natural language, ed. by Keenan, Edward, 33–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1997. The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 2002. Foundations of langage: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. 1995. On the quantificational force of English free relatives. Quantification in natural languages, ed. by Bach, Emmon, Jelinek, Eloise, Kratzer, Angelika, and Partee, Barbara, 451–86. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Johnson, David, and Lappin, Shalom. 1997. A critique of the minimalist program. Linguistics and Philosophy 20. 273–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, David, and Lappin, Shalom. 1999. Local constraints vs. economy. (Stanford monongraphs in linguistics.) Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M., and Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. by Bresnan, Joan, 173–281. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [Reprinted in Formal issues in lexical-functional grammar, ed. by Mary Dalrymple, Ronald Kaplan, John Maxwell, and Annie Zaenen, 29–130. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 1995.]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 R. and Kroch, Anthony S., 17–42. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Reprinted in Formal issues in lexical-functional grammar, ed. by Mary Dalrymple, Ronald Kaplan, John Maxwell, and Annie Zaenen, 137–65. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 1995.]Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1. 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kathol, Andreas. 1995. Linearization-based German syntax. Columbus: The Ohio State University dissertation.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul, and Fillmore, Charles. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What's X doing Y? construction. Language 75. 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul, and Sag, Ivan A.. 2011. Discontinuous dependencies and complex determiners. In Boas & Sag, to appear.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard, and Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1978. Stylistic inversion, successive cyclicity, and Move NP in French. Linguistic Inquiry 12. 93–133.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward, and Hull, Rodney. 1973. The logical presuppositions of questions and answers. Präsuppositionen in der Linguistik und der Philosophie, ed. by Petöfi, Janos and Franck, Dorothea, 441–66. Frankfurt: Athenaeum.Google Scholar
Kehler, Andrew. 2002. Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kemp, Charles, Perfors, Amy; and Tenenbaum, Josh B.. 2007. Learning overhypotheses with hierarchical Bayesian models. Developmental Science 10. 307–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klein, Ewan. 1981. The syntax and semantics of nominal comparatives. Atti de Seminario su Tempo e Verbale Strutture Quantificate in Forma Logica, ed. by Moneglia, M., 223–53. Florence: Presso l'Accademia della Crusca.Google Scholar
Klein, Ewan, and Sag, Ivan A.. 1985. Type-driven translation. Linguistics and Philosophy 8. 163–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kluender, Robert. 1992. Deriving island constraints from principles of predication. Island contraints: Theory, acquisition and processing, ed. by Goodluck, Helen and Rochemont, Michael, 241–79. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kluender, Robert. 1998. On the distinction between strong and weak islands: A processing perspective. Syntax and semantics, vol. 29: The limits of syntax, ed. by Culicover, Peter and McNally, Louise, 241–79. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1987. Unbounded dependencies and subjacency in a tree adjoining grammar. The mathematics of language, ed. by Manaster-Ramer, Alexis, 143–73. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1989. Asymmetries in long distance extraction in a tree adjoining grammar. Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, ed. by Baltin, Mark R. and Kroch, Anthony S., 66–98. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1986. Frame semantic control of the coordinate structure constraint. Chicago Linguistic Society 22. 152–67.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1990. 'What, me, worry?': 'Mad Magazine' sentences revisited. Berkeley Linguistics Society 16. 215–28.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. (Cambridge studies in linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lappin, Shalom, Levine, Robert D.; and Johnson, David E.. 2000a. The revolution confused: A response to our critics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4. 873–90.Google Scholar
Lappin, Shalom, Levine, Robert D.; and Johnson, David E.. 2000b. Topic—comment. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3. 665–71.Google Scholar
Lappin, Shalom, Levine, Robert D.; and Johnson, David E.. 2001. The revolution maximally confused. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4. 901–19.Google Scholar
Lappin, Shalom, and Shieber, Stuart M.. 2007. Machine learning theory and practice as a source of insight into universal grammar. Journal of Linguistics 43. 393–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lev, Iddo. 2005a. Comparative constructions. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, ms. Online: http://sites.google.com/site/pulcproject/material. [Revised in Lev 2007, Chs. 10–14.]Google Scholar
Lev, Iddo. 2005b. Gradable comparatives: Syntax and syntax-semantics interface. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, ms. Online: http://sites.google.com/site/pulcproject/material. [Revised in Lev 2007, Chs. 10–14.]Google Scholar
Lev, Iddo. 2007. Packed computation of exact meaning representations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation. Online: http://sites.google.com/site/pulcproject/material.Google Scholar
Levine, Robert D., and Hukari, Thomas E.. 2006. The unity of unbounded dependency constructions. (CSLI lecture notes 166.) Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Levine, Robert D., Hukari, Thomas E.; and Calcagno, Michael. 2001. Parasitic gaps in English: Some overlooked cases and their theoretical implications. Parasitic gaps (Current studies in linguistics 35), ed. by Culicover, Peter W. and Postal, Paul M., 181–222. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mayol, Laia 2008. Catalan ‘déu n'hi do’ and levels of meaning in exclamatives. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 26. 375–83.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James D. 1979. Transformational syntax and model theoretic semantics: A case study in Modern Irish. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1988b. The comparative conditional constructions in English, German and Chinese. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14. 176–87.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James D. 1990. Resumptive pronouns, A-binding, and levels of representations in Irish. Syntax and semantics, vol. 23: The syntax of the modern Celtic languages, ed. by Hendrick, Randall, 199–248. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2004. Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics 15. 1–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A., and Lambrecht, Knud. 1996. Toward a construction-based model of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language 72. 215–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A., and Ruppenhofer, Josef. 2001. Beyond alternations: A construction-based account of the applicative pattern in German. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Milward, David. 1994. Non-constituent coordination: Theory and practice. 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING '94), August 5–9, ed. by ACL, vol. 2, 935–41, Kyoto, Japan.Google Scholar
Moltmann, Friederike. 1992. Coordination and comparatives. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 1999. An HPSG-analysis for free relative clauses in German. Grammars 2. 53–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2010. Grammatiktheorie: Von der Transformationsgrammatik zur beschränkungsbasierten Grammatik. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2004. Against a parameter-setting approach to language variation. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 4. 181–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2005. Possible and probable languages: A generative perspective on linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2008a. On split CPs and the perfectness of language. Dislocation: Syntactic, semantic, and discourse perspectives, ed. by Shaer, Benjamin, Cook, Philippa, Frey, Werner, and Maienborn, Claudia, 114–40. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2008b. Review of Linguistic minimalism: Origins, concepts, methods, and aims, by Boeckx, Cedric. Language 84. 387–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2009. Current challenges to the lexicalist hypothesis: An overview and a critique. Time and again: Papers in honor of D. Terence Langendoen, ed. by Lewis, William D., Karimi, Simin, and Harley, Heidi, 91–117. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norcliffe, Elisabeth. 2009. Head marking in usage and grammar: A study of variation and change in Yucatec Maya. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven, and Jackendoff, Ray S.. 2005. The faculty of language: What's special about it? Cognition 95. 201–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Carl J., and Sag, Ivan A.. 1987. Information-based syntax and semantics, vol. 1. (CSLI lecture notes 13.) Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl J., and Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 2004. Skeptical linguistic essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postal, Paul M., and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 1982. The contraction debate. Linguistic Inquiry 13. 122–38.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M., and Ross, John R.. 1971. ¡Tough movement si, tough deletion no! Linguistic Inquiry 2. 544–46.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1996. Constructions and the syntax-discourse interface. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, ms. Online: http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~ellen/home.html.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1998. On the limits of syntax, with reference to left-dislocation and topicalization. Syntax and semantics, vol. 29: The limits of syntax, ed. by Culicover, Peter and McNally, Louise, 281–302. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1982. Syncategorematicity and English infinitival to. Glossa 16. 181–215.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1997. The morpholexical nature of English to-contraction. Language 73. 79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K., and Scholz, Barbara C.. 2001. On the distinction between model-theoretic and generative-enumerative syntactic frameworks. Logical aspects of computational linguistics: 4th International Conference (Lecture notes in artificial intelligence 2099), ed. by Groote, Philippe de, Morrill, Glyn, and Retor, Christian, 17–43. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K., and Zwicky, Arnold M.. 1997. Licensing of prosodic features by syntactic rules: The key to auxiliary reduction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Chicago. Abstract available online: http://www-csli.stanford.edu/~zwicky/LSA97.abst.pdf.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 1988. Transformational grammar: A first course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 2004. Minimalist syntax—Exploring the structure of English. (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rett, Jessica. 2008. A degree account of exclamatives. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 18, ed. by Gibson, Masayuki and Friedman, Tova, 601–18. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. Elements of grammar, ed. by Haegeman, Liliane, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. [Published as Infinite syntax!, Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1986.]Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 1997. English relative clause constructions. Journal of Linguistics 33. 431–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2000. Another argument against wh-trace. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, ms. (Jorge Hankamer WebFest.) Online: http://ling.ucsc.edu/Jorge/.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2007. Remarks on locality. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, ed. by Müller, Stefan, 394–414. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2010a. Feature geometry and predictions of locality. Features: Perspectives on a key notion in linguistics, ed. by Corbett, Greville and Kibort, Anna, 236–71. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2010b. Rules and exceptions in the English auxiliary system. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, ms.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2011. Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In Boas & Sag, to appear.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., and Fodor, Janet D.. 1994. Extraction without traces. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 13. 365–84.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., Hofmeister, Philip; and Snider, Neal. 2007. Processing complexity in subjacency violations: The complex noun phrase constraint. Chicago Linguistic Society 43, to appear.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., and Wasow, Thomas. 2011. Performance-compatible competence grammar. Constraints and correspondences: New models of grammar, ed. by Börjars, Kersti and Borsley, Robert. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, to appear.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., Wasow, Thomas; and Bender, Emily M.. 2003. Syntactic theory: A formal introduction. 2nd edn. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Seligman, Jerry, and Moss, Larry. 1997. Situation theory. Handbook of logic and language, ed. by Benthem, Johan van and Meulen, Alice ter, 239–309. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, and Amsterdam: North Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shieber, Stuart M. 1986. Introduction to unification-based approaches to grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 1996. Surface structure and interpretation. (Linguistic Inquiry monograph 30.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 2000. The syntactic process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P., Schachter, Paul; and Partee, Barbara Hall. 1968. Integration of transformational theories of English syntax. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles. [Published as The major syntactic structures of English, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973.]Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 1985. The semantic variability of absolute constructions. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2008. Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torrego, E. 1984. On inversion in Spanish and some of its effects. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 103–29.Google Scholar
Van Eynde, Frank. 1998. The immediate dominance schemata of HPSG: A deconstruction and a reconstruction. Computational linguistics in the Netherlands 1997: Selected papers from the eighth CLIN meeting, ed. by Coppen, Peter-Arno, Halteren, Hans van, and Teunissen, Lisanne, 119–33. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Van Eynde, Frank. 2004. Pied piping is a local dependency. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, ed. by Müller, Stefan, 313–34. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Van Eynde, Frank. 2006. NP-internal agreement and the structure of the noun phrase. Journal of Linguistics 42. 139–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Eynde, Frank. 2007. The big mess construction. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Stanford University, ed. by Müller, Stefan, 415–33. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Webelhuth, Gert. 1992. Principles and parameters of syntactic saturation. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webelhuth, Gert. 2011. The distribution of that-clauses in English: An SBCG account. In Boas & Sag, to appear.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaella, and Portner, Paul. 2003. Exclamative clauses: At the syntax-semantics interface. Language 79. 167–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 89
- Cited by