Part I - Configuration and Hierarchy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 October 2025
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Continuing SyntaxHierarchy and Locality, pp. 1 - 194Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Primary Sources
Anderson, S. & Lightfoot, D.. 2002. The Language Organ: Linguistics as Cognitive Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapters 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnie, A. 2002/2006. Syntax: A Generative Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, Chapter 1.Google Scholar
Cook, V. & Newson, M.. 1996/2007. Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, Chapters 1 and 3.Google Scholar
Crain, S. & Lillo-Martin, D.. 1999. An Introduction to Linguistic Theory and Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, Chapter 1.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. 1997. Principles and Parameters: An introduction to syntactic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Chapter 1.Google Scholar
Freidin, R. 2012. Syntax: Basic Concepts and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapters 2–4.Google Scholar
Guasti, M.T. 2016. Language Acquisition: The growth of grammar. 2nd edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Chapter 1.Google Scholar
Huybregts, R, van Riemsdijk, H, Fukui, N & Zushi, M (eds.) 2004. The Generative Enterprise Revisited. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Chapters 2 and 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, P. 1996. Grammatical Theory in the United States from Bloomfield to Chomsky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapter 4.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. 1996. Generative Linguistics: A historical perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ouhalla, J. 1999. Introducing Transformational Grammar: From principles and parameters to minimalism. London: Arnold, Chapter 1.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. 1994. The Language Instinct. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.10.1037/e412952005-009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. 1988. Transformational Grammar: A first course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapter 1.Google Scholar
Radford, A. 1997. Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English: A minimalist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapter 1.10.1017/CBO9781139166706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. 2004. Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. 2016. Analysing English Sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapters 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, I. & Wasow, T.. 1999. Syntactic Theory: A formal introduction. Stanford: CSLI Publications, Appendix B.Google Scholar
Smith, N. 1999/2004. Chomsky: Ideas and ideals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapters 1–4.Google Scholar
Tomalin, M. 2006. Linguistics and the Formal Sciences: The origins of generative grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Secondary Sources
Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures. Mouton: The Hague.10.1515/9783112316009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1959. A Review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Language 35 1: 26–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1968/2006. Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511791222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its nature, origin, and use. London: Praeger, Chapters 1–4.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000. New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2002. On Nature and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapters 1–4.10.1017/CBO9780511613876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2004a. Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. In Belletti, A. (ed.). Structures and Beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 104–31.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2004b. The Generative Enterprise: Noam Chomsky in discussion with Riny Huybrechts and Henk van Riemsdijk. In Noam Chomsky: The generative enterprise revisited. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2021. Genuine explanation. In Bocci, Giuliano, Botteri, Daniele, Manetti, Claudia & Moscati, Vincenzo (eds.), Rich Descriptions and Simple Explanations in Morphosyntax and Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borsley, R. 1991. Syntactic Theory: A unified approach. London: Longman, Chapters 2–4.Google Scholar
Carnie, A. 2002. Syntax: A generative introduction. London: Blackwell, Chapters 2 and 3.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. 1997. Principles and Parameters: An introduction to syntactic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Chapter 1.10.1093/oso/9780198700159.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P. 1999. Syntactic Nuts: Hard cases, syntactic theory, and language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Chapter 2; for consideration of less straightforward cases.10.1093/oso/9780198700241.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freidin, R. 2012. Syntax: Basic Concepts and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapters 2–4.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 1995. An Introduction to Government and Binding. London: Blackwell, Chapter 1.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 2006. Thinking Syntactically: A guide to argumentation and analysis. Oxford: Blackwell, Chapters 2 and 3.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. & Guéron, J.. 1999. English Grammar: A generative perspective. London: Blackwell, Chapter 1; particularly sub-sections 2.1–2.3.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. 1984. Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, relevants parts of Chapter 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouhalla, J. 1994/1999. Introducing Transformational Grammar. London: Arnold, Chapters 2 and 3 of either edition.Google Scholar
Radford, A. 1988. Transformational Grammar: A first course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapters 2–5.10.1017/CBO9780511840425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. 2004. Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapters 2 and 3.10.1017/CBO9780511811319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. 2016. Analysing English Sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapters 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A., Atkinson, M., Britain, D., Clahsen, H. & Spencer, A.. 1999. Linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapters 17–19 and 22.Google Scholar
Smith, N. 1999. Chomsky: Ideas and Ideals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapter 1 and the relevant parts of Chapter 2.Google Scholar
Sportiche, D., Koopman, H., & Stabler, E.. 2013. An Introduction to Syntactic Analysis and Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, Chapter 3.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. & LaPolla, R.. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapter 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. 2001. Phrase structure as a representation of grammatical relations. In Davies, William D. & Dubinsky, Stanley (eds.), Objects and Other Subjects: Grammatical functions, functional categories and configurationality. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 21–52.10.1007/978-94-010-0991-1_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, J. 1997. Subjecthood and Subject Positions. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 197–235.10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnie, A. 2013. Syntax: A generative introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, Chapters 4, 5, 17.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2023. Beginning Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapter 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, D. 1977. Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 4: 157–89.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. & Postal, P.. 1983a. Some proposed laws of basic clause structure. In Perlmutter, D. (ed.), Studies in Relational Grammar 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 81–128.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. & Postal, P.. 1983b. Towards a universal characterisation of passivisation. In Perlmutter, D. (ed.), Studies in Relational Grammar 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 3–29.Google Scholar
Akkuş, F., Legate, J., Ringe, D. & Šereikaitė, M.. 2020. On passives. Language 96: 771–818.Google Scholar
Baker, M., Johnson, K. & Roberts, I.. 1989. Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 219–51.Google Scholar
Bruening, B. 2013. By phrases in passives and nominals. Syntax 16:1–41.10.1111/j.1467-9612.2012.00171.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, C. 2024. Principles of argument structure: a Merge-based approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/15436.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallulli, D. 2007. Rethinking the passive/anticausative distinction. Linguistic Inquiry 38 (4): 770–80.10.1162/ling.2007.38.4.770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. C. 1996. On the structural positions of themes and goals. In Rooryck, Johan & Zaring, Laurie (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 7–34. A classic presentation of UTAH.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. C. 1997. Thematic roles and syntactic structure. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 73–137. A classic presentation of UTAH.10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barss, A. & Lasnik, H.. 1986. A note on anaphora and double objects. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 347–54. Very short but absolutely crucial empirical arguments paving the way for the postulation of VP-shells. Also a nice illustration of c-command tests in action.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L.. 1988. Pysch verbs and theta theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 291–352. The classic paper on verbs of this class, opening up a significant sub-literature.Google Scholar
Koopman, H. & Sportiche, D.. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua 85: 211–58. Probably the best original primary-research paper advocating VISH.10.1016/0024-3841(91)90022-WCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, R. K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–91. The original proposal for VP-shells; a classic.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 281–337. The most influential and elaborated theory of the ‘split-CP’.10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sportiche, D. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 425–49. A further argument for VISH, beautifully and intricately developed.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 1994. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory, Second edition. Oxford: Blackwell, Chapters 6, 7, and 11.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. & Guéron, Jacqueline. 1999. English Grammar: A generative perspective. Oxford: Blackwell, Chapter 2.Google Scholar
Radford, A. 1988. Transformational Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapters 8–10.10.1017/CBO9780511840425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C., Hornstein, N. & Nunes, J.. 2010. Control as Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511761997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69–96.10.1162/002438999553968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 2003. Movement out of control. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 471–98.10.1162/002438903322247560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I, 2004. The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 811–77.10.1007/s11049-004-4265-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 2013. Control in Generative Grammar: A research companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139061858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 2015. A Two-tiered Theory of Control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262028851.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adger, D. 2003. Core Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Chapter 2.10.1093/oso/9780199243709.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adger, D. & Svenonius, P.. 2011. Features in minimalist syntax. In Boeckx, C. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 27–51.Google Scholar
Adger, D. 2003. Core Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Chapter 6.10.1093/oso/9780199243709.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koeneman, O. & Zeijlstra, H.. 2017. Introducing Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapters 3–8.10.1017/9781316156391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2001. Relativized minimality effects. In Baltin, M. & Collins, C. (eds.) The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 89–110.10.1002/9780470756416.ch4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.2 AAA
The PDF of this book
complies with version 2.2 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), offering more comprehensive accessibility measures for a broad range
of users and attains the highest
(AAA)
level of WCAG compliance, optimising the user experience by meeting the most extensive
accessibility guidelines.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.