MERGING SEMI-LEXICAL HEADS AND ECONOMY
Purchase the full length article!
Handout based on J. Emonds, “The Flat Structure Economy of
Semi-Lexical Heads” Semi-Lexical Cathegories: the Function of Content
Words and the Content of Function Words, Norbert Corver and Henk van
Riemsdijk, eds., Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 2001.
I. THE CATEGORIAL IDENTITY THESIS
An observation of van Riemsdijk
(1996a): If parsimony forces us to
assign modifiers F(X) of a lexical category X (=N, V, A, P) to some X, then
language always indicates that F(X) = X. For example, if we must assign DEG
("degree") to one of N, V, A, P, then DEG is an A.
(1)
_files/image001.gif)
(2) Van
Riemsdijk’s (1996a) Categorial Identity Thesis (CIT): “In the unmarked case the lexical head and the corresponding functional
head have the same categorial features.”
This paper stops short of
assimilating D to N and I to V. Rather, D remains distinct from N and I
distinct from V. For all other categories, it provides support for and
elaborates the CIT.
II. CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND FOR FAMILIAR HIERARCHICAL
STRUCTURES
Let X’ be a phrasal projection of
X0, and let any maximal X’ which doesn’t project to a larger X’ be
notated XP. In a head-initial structure:
(5) Bar Notation Remnant. A phrase Y immediately
dominating a head X0 must be an X1.
(6) Head-initial Parameter. X0 merges only with
following projections Zk.
(7) Theorem of the Extension Condition. Merging X0
with some Zk extends a
projection, to the extent that a new X’ then immediately dominates ZP. Cf.
Chomsky (1995).
It will be important here that (7)
is not an independent stipulation. It only holds so as satisfy the Bar
Notation Remnant (5). Otherwise it violates Economy of Representation:
"Use as little phrase structure as possible." We are used to (7); we
think a new X’ is "natural" as in the following:
(8)
_files/image002.gif)
Here are some typical V sequences
(X = Z = V) and N sequences (X = Z = N) when X0 dominates open class
lexical items.
(9) a. [V=X
promise ] to [VP=ZP [V=Z sell ] [PP these
apartments ] ]
b.
[N=X evidence ] of [ [NP=ZP
[N=Z scandals ] [PP about sex ] ]
The ZP in (9) have the familiar
head-complement properties in (10).
(10) a. ZP can move
as a unit.
What
we promised to do [VP Ø ] was [VP sell those apartments
].
It's
[NP scandals about sex ] that we have evidence of [NP Ø
].
In
Italian, VPs can also move to the front of a sentence as a focus (Rizzi 1978).
b.
ZP can under certain conditions
be ellipted as a unit.
[VP
Speak of that to them ] if you have already promised to [VP Ø ].
We
have evidence of [NP Ø ] and punishments for [NP scandals
about sex ].
These
new [NP scandals about sex ] are juicier than the preceding two [NP
Ø ].
c. ZP can block certain extractions.
Every
constraint on extracting phrases has been formulated in terms of phrases that
block extraction from below them.
d.
Only X0 enters into
selection and agreement with elements outside X’.
Scandals
about sex { have/ *has } never ending appeal.
He
{ promises/ *promise } to { sell/ *sells } those apartments.
e.
When clitics have hosts of
fixed category (e.g. Romance Vs), complements of Z0 cliticize onto Z0
not X0. French example, with the clitic le ‘it’:
Marie
a décidé de le prendre. *Marie
l'a décidé de prendre.
'Mary decided to take it.'
f.
Both X0 and Z0
can have the purely semantic features f characteristic of full lexical
heads. The examples in (9) show this.
The current universally
presupposed (unproved) situation, which seems to "confirm" (7) and
(8), is that "extending projections" always results from Merging.
This paper denies this.
III. DEFINING TWO KINDS OF FEATURES
(11) Full lexical heads are
lexical items from the open classes N, V, A and P that contain non-syntactic, purely semantic features (script f) which have a role in
selection and interpretation but not in derivations (as for scandals,
sell, soft, aboard, etc.).
(12) In addition (and contrast), syntactic features (upper case F) on all grammatical categories play central roles in derivations, and
in selection and interpretation as well.
No purely semantic features f
at all appear on any categories other than N, V, A, P. But the most central N,
V, A, P lack purely semantic features:
(13) Semi-lexical heads (=
grammatical heads) are those N, V,
A, and P which lack purely
semantic features f. (people,
thing, do, get, much, so, by, of, etc.)
Probably there are no purely
semantic features in the following whole sentence:
(14) Two more people will come be with us and then go down
with others from here.
IV. SOME
SEMI-LEXICAL HEADS WHICH DO EXTEND PROJECTIONS
Jackendoff (1973) examines a range
of P complements of P, to show that, contra traditional grammar, Ps do not
invariably take nominal complements. To/from are one such type:
(15) a. They moved a
car [P from ] [PP (right)
near the barn ] ([P to ] [PP by the fence ]).
b. They took the cat [P Ø ] [PP
in(to) the house ].
English can strand the first P in
these recursive PPs, but not the second P.
(16) a. Where they
moved it from [PP Ø ] was near the barn.
It’s
by the fence that they should move it to [PP Ø ].
b. *What they moved it [PP from
[PP near [DP Ø ] ] ] was the barn.
*It’s
the barn that they moved it [PP from [PP near [DP Ø
] ] ].
Thus, the embedded PPs both move
(10a) and block extractions (10c).
The main V selects & assigns a
semantic role to the first P (directional), not the second (10d).
(17) _files/image003.gif)
“Sometimes PLACE and PATH are
conflated in the position of P0, but when the two are separated, it
is always PATH which is ‘externalized” to a functional position.” (van Riemsdijk,
1996b)
(18) a. French: Nous avons mis le chat [P en ] [PP dehors de la maison ].
‘We have
put the cat to outside of the house.’
b. Japanese:
[PP Ie no soto ] [P ni ] neko o
dasu.
house GEN
outside to cat ACC take
‘They
take the cat to outside the house.’
Is the recursive or
"articulated" PP structure of (17) just "automatic"? Or do to/from
extend the lower PP to a higher PP for a reason?
In my view, the “directional” P in
(15) and (17)-(18) is an intermediate head imposed by (19):
(19) Revised Theta Criterion
(RTC). There cannot be a theta
relation between two phrases which both stand in theta relations to a third
element.
There is
an italicized theta relation (via predication) between the direct object DPs in
(15) and (17)-(18) and the lower
PPs. So by (19) these lower PPs cannot be theta related to the main V. An extra higher P solves this problem, because it has no relation the
object DPs.
The
indexed triplets in (20) also violate the RTC (Emonds, 1985, Ch. 2; 2000, Ch.
7)
(20) *We [ { discouraged/ prevented } ]1 [ Mary ]2
[ taking that job ]3.
*He [ described ]1 [ his family
]2 [ { hopeless/ without roots/ a mess } ]3.
*
[ The girl ]1 [ decided ]2 [ smoking cigars ]3.
*The
girl [ persuaded ]1 [ her boyfriend ]2 [ smoking cigars ]3.
The extra intermediate grammatical
P and I heads in bold in (21) have the same role as the Ps in (17)-(18) in
"rescuing" the triplets in (20) from the RTC (19):
(21) We { discouraged/ prevented } Mary from taking that job.
He described his family as {
hopeless/ without roots/ a mess }.
*The
girl { decided/ persuaded her boyfriend } to smoke cigars.
In (22a) there is no RTC violation
because consider and his family are not in a theta relation.
(22b) has no violation because caught and found are not in a
theta relation with sleeping.
(22) a. He [ considered ] [ his family ] [ {
hopeless/ without roots/ a mess } ].
b. The girl { caught/ found } her
boyfriend sleeping soundly.
The question thus is, exactly when do grammatical heads extend
projections and when not?
(23) Main Claim. Merging extends a projection only when some principle of grammar
requires it, such as the Revised Theta Criterion (19) or the Bar Notation
Remnant (5).
In fact, this Main Claim follows
from--or simply just “is”--Economy of Representation.
V.
SEMI-LEXICAL HEADS WHICH DON'T EXTEND PROJECTIONS
Why does the branching resulting
from the Extension Condition, usually binary, seem so natural?
(24) Tree Growth. Each new extension of
a projection (7) contains at most one full lexical head (11).
Minimalism
has wrongly assumed "every new head, full or semi-lexical, extends
projections."
Suppose
we have an X1 and we wish to Merge it with a new semi-lexical head X0
as in (13).
(5) Bar Notation Remnant. The phrase Y’ immediately
dominating a head X0 must be X1.
(6) Head-initial Parameter. X0
merges only with following
projections Zk.
We must put a head X0
leftmost in English and rightmost in Japanese. We can, in fact must, merge it under
X1, since a "flat structure" satisfies both (5)
and Economy of Representation:
(25)
_files/image004.gif)
This “flat” structure for
semi-lexical heads can emerge only if X
and Z in (6) are the same category. Tree Growth (24) doesn't apply. (Of
course, the RTC must also sanction a flat structure.)
What do we expect empirically if,
counter to recent generative analyses, flat structures exist?
In flat structures [XP X01
... X0n ... WP ... ], let Y stand for the sequence
X0n ... WP .... Then the Main Claim (23) predicts that flat
structure behavior will contrast sharply with those in (10):
(26) a. The sequence Y
doesn’t move as a unit.
b.
The sequence Y can’t be ellipted
as a unit.
c.
The sequence Y fails to block
extractions.
d.
X1 or Xn can
enter into selection and agreement with elements outside X’.
e.
When clitics have hosts of
category X, complements of Xn cliticize on X1 not Xn.
f.
Among X0, only Xn
can have the purely semantic features f of full lexical heads.
In fact, the many paradigms that
support Van Riemsdijk’s CIT suggest that flat structures (= “unextended
projections”) occur only when X0
is a semi-lexical head rather than a full lexical head, since precisely in
these cases traditional grammar speaks of "modifiers of X."
VI. EXAMPLE 1: FLAT STRUCTURES WHEN X = PREPOSITION
Jackendoff (1973) observes further
P-P sequences as in (27a). (27b) shows the larger PP moves.
(27) a. They left that
[PP over near the couch ].
Put
the linens [PP down under this bed ].
Mary
pushed her toys [PP away (*right) under the bathtub ].
They
ordered more agents [PP out (*right) into the
b. Where they left that was [PP
over near the couch ].
It’s
[PP down under this bed ] that the linens have always been put.
Where
Mary pushed her toys was [PP away under the bathtub ].
It
was [PP out into the
As for properties (26a) and (26c),
the second P clearly heads no PP that would allow moving the sequence Y as in
(28a) or blocking extractions as in (28b):
(28) a. *Where they
left that over was near the couch.
*It’s
under this bed that the linens have
always been put down.
*Where
Mary pushed her toys away was under the
bathtub.
*It
was into the
b. ?What they left that over near was the
couch.
(Response
to: They left that over near something, but I don’t know what.)
?It’s
this bed that the linens have always been put down under.
?What
Mary pushed her toys away under was the bathtub.
?It
was the
Nor is there any phrasal ellipsis
(26b) of the sequence Y that starts with the second P:
(29) Some agents have gone out [PP to the
*Put
the toys over [PP Ø ] and the linens down [PP under the
bed ].
As allowed by property (26d), the
main verb selects and assigns a semantic role to the second P:
(30) Sew these strips ({ up/ together/ along
the opening/ onto the edge/ *out/ *apart/
*away from the opening/ *off the edge }.
Along the lines of requirement
(26e), the modifier right, which typically has a P host, modifies only
the first P, as shown in (27a).
In accord with (26f), the first P
in the sequence X0 can't have the purely semantic features f characteristic
of full lexical heads. The choices for P1 are a few pairs: up,
down, away, back, etc.
These paradigms all empirically
confirm the CIT and that we have a special case of tree (25).
This result is a correct
prediction of the Main Claim (23):
semi-lexical heads X need not extend a projection X’. Moreover, there are
no extra theta roles to violate the RTC (19).
(31)
_files/image005.gif)
A necessary (but not sufficient)
condition for flat structures: The two
“heads” must be of the same category, and all but the rightmost must be semi-lexical
(no semantic f).
VII. EXAMPLE 2: FLAT STRUCTURES WHEN X = ADJECTIVE
Grammatical modifiers of A
("degree words") as in (32) themselves exemplify the category A when
used alone (33).
(32) She seemed { real/ pretty/ awful/ dammed/ so} {upset/ happy }.
How
upset did she seem today?
(33) She seemed { real/ pretty/ awful/ dammed/ so}.
How
did she seem today?
Is
that house shabby now? It { got/ seemed/ remained } so last year.
Their
living in it made it so. I found it so, I must say.
Certain French modifiers of A
exhibit the same dichotomous behavior:
(34) a. Cette histoire semble { fort/ bien } intéressante.
‘That
story seems { strong/ well } interesting.’
b.
'Peter
seems { strong/ well }.'
Modifiers of A like very, how, so, etc. have
certain A properties and other special properties:
(35) How very sad! So very sad. Very very sad.
*Too so sad! *So how sad.
John seemed confused. How so? *Very so? Yes, quite so. Yes, even more so.
For example, very and too
must take an A complement: +___A.
In
contrast, how is listed
as A, WH, +___(A). Its complement can be very but not too or less.
Most but not all modifiers of A
are mutually exclusive, as in early bar notation studies. The hypothesis
here doesn't at this point explain why these items so rarely modify each other.
(36) _files/image006.gif)
The many empirical properties in
(26) hold for structures like (36), where Xn = upset and Y = upset about
money. Such a sequence Y doesn’t move (26a), stranding the modifiers (37a).
Nor does it ellipt (26b), as seen in (37b):
(37) a. *What that
report will make Sue { awful/ quite/ real/ too } is upset about money.
b. Is it shabby now? *It got { awful/
very/ so/ quite/ pretty/ real/ too } last year.
No paradigms suggest that modifiers
of A block extractions that are otherwise possible (26c). Finally, only the
final An in (36) can have the purely semantic features of full
lexical heads (26f).
Further confirmation of flat
structure: Certain grammatical A, in particular the comparatives more and less, allow measure phrase specifiers MP. The fact that MP+A or A+A
are not constituents in flat structures accounts for some paradigms in Corver
(1997):
(38) a. [MP
How many IQ-points ] is John less smart (than Bill)?
*How
many IQ-points less is John smart (than Bill)?
b. John is so { much/ extremely } afraid
of spiders that he won’t go there.
So
{ much/ *extremely } is John afraid of spiders that he won’t go there.
VIII. AN
AUXILIARY HYPOTHESIS ON “ADJUNCTS”
Finally, (only) An in
(36) enters into selection and agreement with items outside AP (26d).
We might wish to know why A1
never seems to enter into such selection and agreement.
First, A and P seem to share a
feature, call it +A for “adjunct.” (i) Adjuncts take only the surface forms of
AP or PP. (ii) Adjuncts can coordinate. (iii) Neither have extended projections
with overt internal subjects. [In my (controversial) view, AP and PP
have no internal subjects of any type.]
An auxiliary hypothesis is
necessary to account for the fact that a modifier such as DEG can’t be the head
of AP at LF. That is, it is never the element in AP that enters into selection:
(39) That { day/ *girl/ *color/ *attitude } seemed [AP [A
so/ pretty ] { eventful/ long
}].
(40) Anti-headedness. Modifying
categories (i.e., [X, +A] ) can head phrases in LF only if they extend
projections.
That is,
without extending projections, adjuncts can only be interpreted as further
specifying X.
IX. EXAMPLE 3: FLAT STRUCTURES WHEN X = NOUN
A central basis for Van
Riemsdijk’s CIT (2) is that quantity "modifiers" in noun phrases are
clearly nouns, argued in both Jackendoff (1977) and Selkirk (1977).
This holds even for numerals;
Babby (1987) and Veselovská (2001) have argued that high numerals in the richly
inflected Slavic systems must be of category N.
In a similar vein, Kubo (1996) has
argued that Japanese numeric classifiers Ncl are grammatical N, i.e.
lacking the purely semantic features f of (11). Based on the
pseudo-partitive construction, Japanese
classifiers Ncl are right hand heads with (flat) N0
complements.
Therefore, both numerals and numeric classifiers are also candidates for
grammatical N.
Let's re-examine English
pseudo-partitives with quantity nouns, looking for flat structure behavior:
(41) A pile of counterfeit
bills { was/ were } found behind the door.
Another
bouquet of roses with long stems { okhas/
*have } arrived.
A
lot of Christmas leftovers { *is/ okare } being eaten.
These examples suggest that pseudo-partitives exhibit flat structures
iff any literal interpretation of some +f associated with a quantity N
is missing. (Some NQ like a
lot never have a semantic +f.)
Movement
(26a): An NP extraposes (a lower NP exists) only if [ N,+f ] is
interpreted literally:
(42) A pile {was/ *were} discovered of counterfeit bills. (pile must be literal)
A bouquet
has arrived of roses with long stems.
*A lot is
being eaten of Christmas leftovers.
*A
lot was eaten of leftover turkey. (Selkirk,
1977)
Ellipsis (26b): Similarly, only
literal quantity Ns permit a pseudo-partitive NP to ellipt:
(43) Roses with stems are hard to find, but we found a load [NP
Ø ] in the market.
Two
dollar bills are rare, but there was a pile [NP Ø ] on that table.
Some
red wine is cheap, but a {corked/ *dry} bottle [NP Ø ] would impress them.
Blocking
Extraction (26c): A literal quantity N is incompatible with extraction from a
subject:
(44) Take a sip of this wine that a bottle of [NP Ø
] was spoiled.
*Take
a sip of this wine that a bottle of [NP Ø ] was painted black.
Embedded
NPs block agreement and selection (26d): As seen in (41)-(42), a
plural second N is accessible for external agreement only in flat structures,
when the quantity noun is not literal.
Selectional restrictions and full
semantic features (26d, f): Only literal quantity N—bottle in (45a)—or a
full lexical N—wine in (45b)—enter into selection restrictions:
(45) a. We broke a {
green/ hand-blown/ *sour / *aromatic } bottle of Spanish wine.
b. We sipped a { *green/ *hand-blown/
sour/ aromatic } bottle of Spanish wine.
(46) _files/image007.gif)
X. EXAMPLE 4: FLAT STRUCTURES WHEN X = VERB
The Italian V-V “restructuring”
sequences of Rizzi (1978) and the V-V causative sequences in all of Romance both
nicely exemplify dual structures throughout derivations:
(47)
_files/image008.gif)
(48)
_files/image009.gif)
All Romance restructuring verbs
(translations of can, should, want, go,
come, start, go on, finish, etc.)
and “causative” verbs (translations of make,
let, see, hear, feel) are semi-lexical
verbs, in that all their features are plausibly F and not purely semantic f.
Lack of +f is the only
criterion that characterizes these V as a natural class.
Anti-headedness (40) applies only
to AP and PP modifiers, so it allows either V in (48) to have head
properties, unlike with A or P.
All
differences between restructuring and causative verbs are due to the lower
subject being empty (co-indexed with the higher subject) with restructuring V,
but disjoint in reference with the causative verb’s subject (Zagona, 1982;
Burzio, 1986).
The only
reason for hesitating over the flat structure (48) is the following: Where
structurally is a subject of the second V so that (47) and (48) contain
identical predications?
Otherwise, all the paradigms assembled by studies of Romance restructuring and
causatives verbs support an alternation between flat and non-flat structures.
Let's repeat the flat structure criteria; Y = the second V + its
complements and adjuncts:
(26) a. The sequence Y
doesn’t move as a unit.
b.
The sequence Y can’t be ellipted
as a unit.
c.
The sequence Y fails to block
extractions.
d.
X1 or Xn can
enter into selection and agreement with elements outside X’.
e.
When clitics have hosts of
category X, complements of Xn cliticize on X1 not Xn.
f.
Among X0, only Xn
can have the purely semantic features f of full lexical heads.
When any
of the following tests indicates either an articulated or a flat structure in
Romance, other tests confirm the
same structure. The diagnostics can't
"mix" in one example.
26a. The lower VP in (47) can move as a unit, but V+WP in the flat
(48) cannot:
E.g.,
Italian focus fronting, right node raising, complex NP shift, and WH-fronting
in restrictive relatives. (Rizzi on restructuring and Burzio on causatives)
26b. Irrelevant, as VPs in Romance do not allow ellipsis (Zagona,
1982).
26c.
The lower VP in (47) plays a role in
blocking clause-mate extractions, but these are permitted in (48). E.g., middle
formation with si 'self' and the easy to please construction. (Rizzi;
Abeillé, Godard and Miller)
26d. In (48): (i) A causative or restructuring V1 agrees
with and selects a preceding subject.
(ii) The
complement Vx selects the following lower subject in
causatives.
(iii) The
last Vx in a restructuring sequence selects between the Italian
perfect auxiliary avere 'have' or essere 'be' (Rizzi, 1978).
26e.
Complements
(and adjuncts) always cliticize within "the lowest VP." In the
flat structure (48) clitics are on V1, but certain adverbial clitics
y and en and reflexive se can
cliticize onto the second Vn. (Rouveret and Vergnaud, 1980; Milner,
1982)
26f. Only the final Vn in (48) can have some +f
with “higher semantic specificity." (Burzio)
Many further comparisons confirm
the contrasting in the structures (47)-(48):
g.
The Italian bi-syllabic enclitic loro 'to them' is phrase-bound (Rizzi,
1978); it can attach only to the second V in the articulated (47) but to either
V in the flat (48).
h.
Word orders in complex causatives
with postposed subjects, a sign of a flat structure (48), are
correct only if treated as originating in a single VP. (Miller, 1992)
(49) Jean a fait faire sauter le pont à son fils. (French example from Kayne,
1975)
John
has made make explode the bridge to his son
‘John
has made his son make the bridge explode.’
i. As
predicted for a flat (48), only one accusative case is available in causatives.
(Burzio)
j.
Under certain conditions, Italian
past participle Vs agree with their object DPs. V1 agrees in this
way in a flat structure (48) but never in (47). (Burzio, 1986)
k. Postposed lower subjects in the flat
(48) can appear as datives in French only if V1 is subcategorized to take a dative. This
leads to the conclusion that these causatives must contain a single VP. (Herschensohn 1981, Milner 1982)
(50) a. J’ai laissé {
mes biens/ gaspiller mes biens } (à mes
enfants).
'I’ve
left/let { my possessions/ waste my possessions } to my children'
b. J’ai entendu {
'I’ve
heard { the door/ open the door } (to my children)'
It seems that the trees (47) and (48) are a systematic but apparently
optional alternation.
For an
answer to where the subject of the second verb is in these flat structures
(i.e. for how to remove the only real argument against them), see Emonds (2000,
Ch. 6).
XI. A RESIDUAL PROBLEM
Recall that I am claiming: some principle of grammar must require
semi-lexical head Vs to extend projections, as
in the articulated (47). Otherwise we expect flat structures for grammatical
heads.
(23) Claim. Merging
extends a projection only when a principle of grammar requires it.
Under
the theory developed here, the flat structure (48) should be the only
permitted option unless some principle of grammar requires the recursive
structure in (47) and thereby
excludes (48).
(51) Suggestion. A focus feature FOC can be associated only with
heads or phrases in LF.
Thus, a feature FOC can be
associated with the lower VP complement in (47) but not with the Vn complement,
since the latter is neither a head nor a phrase in LF. Under this view, an articulated lower VP
in (47) focuses the second V. If not, a flat structure must be used.
REFERENCES
Abeillé, A., D. Godard and P. Miller (1997) ‘Les Causatives en Français:
Un Cas de Compétition Syntaxique,’ Langue
Française 115, 62-74.
Babby, L. (1987) ‘Case, Prequantifiers, and Discontinuoous Agreement
in Russian,’ Natural Language and
Linguistics Theory 5, 91-138.
Burzio, L. (1986) Italian Syntax: a Government and Binding Approach, Reidel,
Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program, MIT
Press,
Corver, N. (1997) ‘Much-Support as a Last Resort,’
Linguistic Inquiry 28, 119-164.
Emonds, J. (1985) A Unified Theory of
Linguistic Categories. Foris,
Emonds, J. (2000) Lexicon and Grammar: the
English Syntacticon. Mouton
Herschensohn, J. (1981) ‘French Causatives: Restructuring, Opacity, Filters
and Construal,’ Linguistic Analysis 8,
217-280.
Jackendoff, R. (1973) ‘The Base Rules for Prepositional Phrases,’ A Festschrift for Morris Halle (
Jackendoff, R. (1977) X’-Syntax: A
Study of Phrase Structure, MIT Press,
Kayne, R. (1975) French Syntax,
MIT Press,
Kubo, M. (1996) ‘Some Considerations on Noun Classes and Numeral
Classifiers: A Study of (Pseudo)partitives in Japanese and English,’ Keio Studies in Theoretical Linguistics, 1,
89-124.
Miller, P. (1992) Clitics and
Constituents in Phrase Structure Grammar,
Milner, J.-C. (1982) Ordres et
raisons de langue, Le Seuil, Paris.
Riemsdijk, H. van (1996a) The Extension
of Projections, talk, Kanda University of International Studies.
Riemsdijk, H. van (1996b) Prolegomena
to a Grammar of Space, talk,
Rizzi, L. (1978), ‘A Restructuring Rule in Italian Syntax’, Recent Studies in Transformational Grammar (S.J.
Keyser, ed.), MIT Press,
Rouveret, A. and J.-R. Vergnaud (1980), ‘Specifying Reference to
the Subject: French Causatives and Conditions on Representations,’ Linguistic Inquiry 11, 97-202.
Selkirk, E. (1977) ‘Some Remarks on Noun Phrase Structure,’ Formal Syntax (A. Akmajian, P. Culicover
and T. Wasow, eds.), Academic Press,
Veselovská, L. (2001) ‘Agreement Patterns of Czech Group Nouns and
Quantifiers’ Semi-Lexical Categories (N.
Corver and H. van Riemsdijk, eds.), Mouton
Zagona, K. (1982) Government
and Proper Government of Verbal Projections, doctoral dissertation,