Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

The Linguistic Review

Editor-in-Chief: van der Hulst, Harry

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.676
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.831

CiteScore 2016: 0.52

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.662
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.573

Online
ISSN
1613-3676
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 33, Issue 1

Issues

On the timing of labeling: Deducing Comp-trace effects, the Subject Condition, the Adjunct Condition, and tucking in from labeling

Željko Bošković
Published Online: 2015-12-24 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2015-0013

Abstract

The article provides a uniform account of a number of locality effects, in particular, the Subject Condition, the Adjunct Condition, Richards’s (2001) tucking in effect, and the full Comp-trace paradigm, including (in addition to the basic cases) relative and extraposed clauses, the impossibility of short subject topicalization, French que-qui alternation, and the effect of wh-movement on agreement in languages like Kinande. The account is based on a proposal that there is a difference in the timing of labeling between the basic case where a head and a phrase merge and the case where two phrases merge, as well as a particular labeling-based approach to antilocality, which has rather different empirical effects from the previous approaches to antilocality.

Keywords: Adjunct Condition; antilocality; labels; locality; phases; Subject Condition; that-trace effect; tucking in

References

  • Abels, Klaus. 2003. Successive cyclicity, antilocality, and adposition stranding. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Agbayani, Brian. 2000. Wh-subjects in English and the vacuous movement hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 31. 703–713.Google Scholar

  • Aissen, Judith. 1999. Markedness and subject choice in optimality theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17. 673–711.Google Scholar

  • An, Duk-Ho. 2007. Syntax at the PF interface. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Aoun, Joseph & Yen-Hui Audrey Li. 1991. The interaction of operators. In Robert Freidin (ed.), Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, 163–181. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Belletti, Adriana. 1990. Generalized verb movement. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google Scholar

  • Bobaljik, Jonathan. 1995. Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inflection. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Bobaljik, Jonathan & Dianne Jonas. 1996. Subject positions and the roles of TP. Linguistic Inquiry 27. 195–236.Google Scholar

  • Boeckx, Cedric. 2003. Islands and chains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Boeckx, Cedric. 2005. Some notes on bounding. Ms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar

  • Boeckx, Cedric. 2008. Bare syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Borer, Hagit. 1984. Parametric syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

  • Bošković, Željko. 1992. Clausal selection, subjacency, and minimality. Ms. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut.Google Scholar

  • Bošković, Željko. 1994. D-structure, theta-criterion, and movement into theta-positions. Linguistic Analysis 24. 247–286.Google Scholar

  • Bošković, Željko. 1997. The syntax of nonfinite complementation: An economy approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Bošković, Željko. 2001. On the nature of the syntax-phonology interface: Cliticization and related phenomena. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar

  • Bošković, Željko. 2002. A-movement and the EPP. Syntax 5. 167–218.Google Scholar

  • Bošković, Željko. 2004. Be careful where you float your quantifiers. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22. 681–742.Google Scholar

  • Bošković, Željko. 2005. On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP. Studia Linguistica 59. 1–45.Google Scholar

  • Bošković, Željko. 2007. On the locality and motivation of Move and Agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38. 589–644.Google Scholar

  • Bošković, Željko. 2008. On successive cyclic movement and the freezing effect of feature checking. In Jutta M. Hartmann, Veronika Hegedüs & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), Sounds of silence: Empty elements in syntax and phonology, 195–233. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

  • Bošković, Željko. 2009. On relativization strategies and resumptive pronouns. In Gerhild Zybatow, Uwe Junghanns, Denisa Lenertová & Petr Biskup (eds.), Studies in Formal Slavic Phonology, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics and Information Structure: Proceedings of FDSL 7, Leipzig 2007, 79–93. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

  • Bošković, Željko. 2011. Rescue by PF deletion, traces as (non)interveners, and the that-trace effect. Linguistic Inquiry 42. 1–44.Google Scholar

  • Bošković, Željko. 2013a. Traces do not head islands: What can PF deletion rescue?. In Yoichi Miyamoto, Daiko Takahashi, Hideki Maki, Masao Ochi, Koji Sugisaki & Asako Uchibori (eds.), Deep insights, broad perspectives: Essays in honor of Mamoru Saito, 56–93. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar

  • Bošković, Željko. 2013b. Phases beyond clauses. In Lilia Schürcks, Anastasia Giannakidou & Urtzi Etxeberria (eds.), The nominal structure in Slavic and beyond, 75–128. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Bošković, Željko. 2014. Now I’m a phase, now I’m not a phase: On the variability of phases with extraction and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 45. 27–89.Google Scholar

  • Bošković, Željko. in press. From the Complex NP Constraint to Everything: On deep extractions across categories. The Linguistic Review Glow Issue.

  • Bošković, Željko. 2015. The ban on movement out of moved elements in the phasal/labeling system. Ms. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut.Google Scholar

  • Bošković, Željko & Howard Lasnik. 2003. On the distribution of null complementizers. Linguistic Inquiry 34. 527–546.Google Scholar

  • Brandi, Luciana & Patricia Cordin. 1989. Two Italian dialects and the null subject parameter. In Osvaldo Jaeggli & Kenneth J. Safir (eds.), The null subject parameter, 111–142. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

  • Branigan, Philip. 2005. The phase theoretic basis for Subject-Aux Inversion. Ms. St. John’s: Memorial University of Newfoundland.Google Scholar

  • Bresnan, Joan W. 1972. Theory of complementation in English syntax. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Brillman, Ruth & Aron Hirsch. 2014. An anti-locality account of English subject/non-subject asymmetries. Paper presented at the 50th meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago.

  • Broekhuis, Hans. 2005. Extraction from subjects: Some remarks on Chomsky’s On phases. In Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny Huybregts, Ursula Kleinhenz & Jan Koster (eds.), Organizing the grammar: Studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdjik, 59–68. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Browning, Maggie. 1996. CP recursion and that-t effects. Linguistic Inquiry 27. 237–255.Google Scholar

  • Buesa García, Carlos. 2011. The interaction between locality and the subject-gap restriction in Spanish questions. In Suzi Lima, Kevin Mullin & Brian Smith (eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 39, 163–176. Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar

  • Campos, Héctor. 1997. On subject extraction and the anti-agreement effect in Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 92–119.Google Scholar

  • Chametzky, Robert. 2000. Phrase structure: From GB to minimalism. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • de Chene, Brent. 1995. Complementizer-trace effects and the ECP. Geneva Generative Papers 3(1). 1–4. Département de Linguistique Générale, Université de Genève.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquires. In Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (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 Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlos Peregrin & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory. Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130. 33–49.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam. 2015. Problems of projection: Extensions. In Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann, Simona Matteini (eds.), Structures, strategies and beyond – studies in honour of Adriana Belletti, 3–16. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam & Howard Lasnik. 1977. Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 1–46Google Scholar

  • Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Collins, Chris. 2002. Eliminating labels. In Samuel David Epstein & T. Daniel Seely (eds.), Derivation and explanation in Minimalist syntax, 42–64. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

  • Collins, Chris. 2014. Merge(X.Y) = {X,Y}. Ms. New York: New York University.Google Scholar

  • Coon, Jessica, Pedro Mateo Pedro & Omer Preminger. In press. The role of case in A-bar extraction asymmetries: Evidence from Mayan. Linguistic Variation.

  • Culicover, Peter. 1992. The adverb effect: Evidence against ECP accounts of the that-t effect. In Amy J. Schafer (ed.), Proceedings of The North East Linguistics Society 23, 97–11. Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar

  • Culicover, Peter & Michael Rochemont. 1992. Adjunct extraction from NP and the ECP. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 496–501.Google Scholar

  • Deal, Amy Rose. 2014. Cyclicity and connectivity in Nez Perce relative clauses. Ms. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California Santa Cruz.

  • Dikken, Marcel den. 1995. Particles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Dikken, Marcel den. 2006. Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion and copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Dikken, Marcel den. 2007. Phase extension: Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction. Theoretical Linguistics 33. 1–41.Google Scholar

  • Epstein, Samuel David, Hisatsugu Kitahara & T. Daniel Seely. 2014. Labeling by minimal search: Implications for successive-cyclic A-movement and the conception of the postulate “Phase”. Linguistic Inquiry 45. 463–481.Google Scholar

  • Erlewine, Michael. 2014. Anti-locality and optimality in Kaqchikel Agent Focus. Ms. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar

  • Fox, Danny & Howard Lasnik. 2003. Successive-cyclic movement and island repair: The difference between sluicing and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 34. 143–154.Google Scholar

  • Gallego, Ángel J. & Juan Uriagereka. 2006. Conditions on sub-extraction. Ms. Barcelona and College Park: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and University of Maryland.Google Scholar

  • Gallego, Ángel J. & Juan Uriagereka. 2007. Sub-extraction from subjects: A phase theory account. In José Camacho, Nydia Flores-Ferrán, Liliana Sánchez, Viviane Déprez & María José Cabrera (eds.), Romance Linguistics 2006, 149–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Ginzburg, Jonathan & Ivan A. Sag. 2000. Interrogative Investigations. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Grohmann, Kleanthes. 2003. Prolific domains: On the antilocality of movement dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Grohmann, Kleanthes. 2011. Antilocality: Too close relations in grammar. In Cedric Boeckx (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism, 260–290. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Hiraiwa, Ken. 2005. Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: Agreement and clausal architecture. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Hoge, Kerstin. 2001. That-t effects in English and Yiddish. In Galina Alexandrova & Olga Arnaudova (eds.), The Minimalist Parameter, 233–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Holmberg, Anders & Thorbjörg Hróarsdóttir. 2003. Agreement and movement in Icelandic raising constructions. Lingua 113. 997–1019.Google Scholar

  • Hornstein, Norbert. 2009. A theory of syntax: Minimal operations and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hornstein, Norbert & Jairo Nunes. 2008. Adjunction, labeling and bare phrase structure. Biolinguistics 2. 57–86.Google Scholar

  • Hornstein, Norbert & Jacek Witkoś. 2003. Yet another approach to existential constructions. In Lars-Olof Delsing, Cecilia Falk, Gunlög Josefsson & Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson (eds.), Grammar in Focus: Festschrift for Christer Platzack, Lund: Lund University, Department of Scandinavian.Google Scholar

  • Hornstein, Norbert, Howard Lasnik & Juan Uriagereka. 2003. The dynamics of islands: Speculations on the locality of movement. Linguistic Analysis 33. 149–175.Google Scholar

  • Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Hunter, Tim. 2010. Relating movement and adjunction in syntax and semantics. Barcelona and College Park, MD: University of Maryland dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Ishii, Toru. 1999. Cyclic spell-out and the that-trace effect. In Sonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason Haugen & Peter Norquest (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 18, 220–231. Sommerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

  • Ishii, Toru. 2004. The phase impenetrability condition, the vacuous movement hypothesis, and that-t effects. Lingua 114. 183–215.Google Scholar

  • Jeong, Youngmi. 2006. The landscape of applicatives. College Park, MD: University of Maryland dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Kandybowicz, Jason. 2006. Comp-trace effects explained away. In Donald Baumer, David Montero & Michael Scanlon (eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 220–228. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

  • Kandybowicz, Jason. 2008. The grammar of repetition: Nupe grammar at the syntax phonology interface. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Kayne, Richard. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

  • Kim, Sun-Woong. 2008. English C moves downward as well as upward: An extension of Bošković and Lasnik’s (2003) approach. Linguistic Inquiry 39. 295–307.Google Scholar

  • Koopman, Hilda. 2006. Agreement configuration: In defense of the Spec head configuration. In Cedric Boeckx (ed.), Agreement systems, 159–199. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Lasnik, Howard. 1995. Verbal morphology: Syntactic structures meets the Minimalist Program. In Héctor Campos & Paula Kempchinsky (eds.), Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Carlos Otero, 251–275. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lasnik, Howard. 1999. Minimalist analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Lasnik, Howard. 2001. When can you save a structure by destroying it?. In Min-Joo Kim & Uri Strauss (eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, 31, 301–320. Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar

  • Lasnik, Howard & Mamoru Saito. 1984. On the nature of proper government. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 235–289.Google Scholar

  • Lasnik, Howard & Mamoru Saito. 1992. Move α: Conditions on its application and output. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Law, Paul. 1993. On the base position of wh-adjuncts and extraction. Paper presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Los Angeles, California, January 1993.

  • Lohndal, Terje. 2007. Subextraction and the freezing effect: A Scandinavian case study. Ms. University of Oslo.

  • Lohndal, Terje. 2009. Comp-T effects: Variation in the position and features of C. Studia Linguistica 63. 204–232.Google Scholar

  • McCloskey, James. 1991. Resumptive pronouns, A’-binding, and levels of representation in Irish. In Randall Hendrick (ed.), Syntax and semantics 23: The syntax of the modern Celtic languages, 199–248. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • McCloskey, James. 2000. Quantifier float and wh-movement in an Irish English. Linguistic Inquiry 31. 57–84.Google Scholar

  • Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Mizuguchi, Manabu. 2008. Derivation, minimalism and that-trace effects. English Linguistics 25. 56–92.Google Scholar

  • Mizuguchi, Manabu. 2014. Phases, labeling, and wh-movement of the subject. Paper presented at the 32nd Conference of the English Linguistic Society of Japan, Gakushuin University, Tokyo, November 8.

  • Moro, Andrea. 1997. The raising of predicates: Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Müller, Gereon. 2010. On Deriving CED Effects from the PIC. Linguistic Inquiry 41. 35–82.Google Scholar

  • Mutaka, Ngessimo Mathe. n.d. Kinande: A grammar sketch. The African Anaphora Project, Rutgers University.

  • Nomura, Masashi. 2005. Nominative case and AGREE(ment). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Nunes, Jairo. in preparation. The locus of edge features and its implications for upward and sideward movement. Ms. São Paulo: Universidade de São Paulo.Google Scholar

  • Ott, Dennis. In press. Symmetric merge and local instability: Evidence from split topics. Syntax.

  • Perlmutter, David. 1971. Deep and surface constraints in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

  • Pesetsky, David. 1981. Complementizer-trace phenomena and the nominative island condition. The Linguistic Review 1. 297–343.Google Scholar

  • Pesetsky, David. 1992. Zero Syntax Vol. 2. Ms. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar

  • Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 355–426. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Preminger, Omer. 2011. Agreement as a fallible operation. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Reinhart, Tanya. 1980. On the position of extraposed clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 621–624.Google Scholar

  • Richards, Norvin. 2001. Movement in language: Interactions and architectures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Riqueros, José. 2013. Spanish nominal(ization) patterns. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

  • Rizzi, Luigi. 2006. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds.), Wh-movement: Moving on, 97–133. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Rizzi, Luigi. 2013. Cartography, criteria and labeling. Ms. Université de Genève.

  • Rizzi, Luigi. this volume. Labelling, maximality, and the head-phrase distinction.

  • Rizzi, Luigi & Ur Shlonsky. 2007. Strategies of subject extraction. In H.-M.Gärtner & Uli Sauerland (eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics, 115–160. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Ross, John Robert. 1969. Guess who? In Robert I. Binnick, Alice Davison, Georgia M. Green & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 252–286. Chicago: University of Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

  • Roussou, Anna. 2002. C, T, and the subject: That-t phenomena revisited. Lingua 112. 13–52.Google Scholar

  • Rudin, Catherine. 1988. On multiple questions and multiple wh-fronting. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6. 445–501.Google Scholar

  • Sabel, Joachim. 2000. Expletives as features. In Roger Billerey & Brook Danielle Lillehaugen (eds.), The Proceedings of the Nineteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 101–114. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

  • Saito, Mamoru. 2014. Case and labeling in a language without φ-feature agreement. In Anna Cardinaletti, Guglielmo Cinque & Yoshio Endo (eds.), On Peripheries: Exploring clause initial and clause final positions, 269–297. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Saito, Mamoru & Keiko Murasugi. 1999. Subject predication within IP and DP. In Kyle Johnson & Ian Roberts (eds.), Beyond principles and parameters, 167–188. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

  • Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 1995. Specifier/head agreement in Kinande. Cahiers Linguistiques d’Ottawa 23. 67–93.Google Scholar

  • Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 2007. Anti-agreement, anti-locality, and minimality. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25. 403–446.Google Scholar

  • Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 2009. Wh-agreement and bounded and unbounded movement. In Jose Brucart, Anna Gavorro & Juame Sola (eds.), Merging Features, 46–59. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Seely T. Daniel. 2006. Merge, derivational c-command, and subcategorization in a label-free syntax. In Cedric Boeckx (ed.), Minimalist Essays, 182–220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Shlonsky, Ur. 2014. A note on labeling, Berber states, and VSO order. In Sabrina Bendjaballah, Noam Faust, Mohamed Lahrouchi & Nicola Lampitelli (eds.), The Form of structure, the structure of form, 349–360. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Sportiche, Dominique. 2011. French relative qui. Linguistic Inquiry 42. 83–124.Google Scholar

  • Stepanov, Arthur. 2001. Cyclic domains in syntactic theory. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Stepanov, Arthur. 2007. The end of CED? Minimalism and extraction domains. Syntax 10. 80–126.Google Scholar

  • Stjepanović, Sandra. 1999. What do second position cliticization, scrambling, and multiple wh-fronting have in common. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Stowell, Timothy. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Szczegielniak, Adam. 1999. That-t effects crosslinguistically and successive cyclic movement. In Karlos Arregi, Benjamin Bruening, Cornelia Krause & Vivian Lin (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 33, 369–393. Cambridge: Department of Linguistics, MITWPL.Google Scholar

  • Talić, Aida. 2014. Extraordinary complement extraction: PP-complements and inherently case-marked nominal complements. Studies in Polish Linguistics 8. 127–150.Google Scholar

  • Taraldsen, Knut T. 2001. Subject extraction, the distribution of expletives and stylistic inversion. In Aafke Hulk & Jean-Yves Pollock (eds.), Subject inversion in Romance and the theory of universal grammar, 16–182. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ticio, Emma. 2005. Locality and anti-locality in Spanish DPs. Syntax 8. 229–286.Google Scholar

  • Truswell, Robert. 2011. Events, phrases, and questions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Uriagereka, Juan. 1988. On government. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Uriagereka, Juan. 2012. Spell-out and the Minimalist Program. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Watanabe, Akira. 1993. Larsonian CP recursion, factive complements, and selection. In Schafer, Amy J. (ed.), Proceedings of the 23rd meeting of the North East Linguistics Society, 523–537. Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar

  • Wurmbrand, Susi. 2013. Tagalog infinitives: Consequences for the theory of phases, voice marking and extraction. Ms. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut.Google Scholar

  • Wurmbrand, Susi. 2014. Tense and aspect in English infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 45. 403–447.Google Scholar

  • Yoo, YongSuk. 2015. Labeling algorithm and its consequences on movement. Paper presented at the 17th Seoul Conference on Generative Grammar, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea, August 5th-8th.

About the article

Published Online: 2015-12-24

Published in Print: 2016-02-01


Funding: This work is based upon research supported by the NSF under Grant BCS-0920888.


Citation Information: The Linguistic Review, Volume 33, Issue 1, Pages 17–66, ISSN (Online) 1613-3676, ISSN (Print) 0167-6318, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2015-0013.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in