Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-x9fsb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-25T08:58:08.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two quirks of structure: non-projecting heads and the Mirror Image Principle1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Lisa Demena Travis
Lisa Demena Travis
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, McGill UniversityIOOI Sherbrooke West,Montreal, Quebec H3A 1G5, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Review Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , September 1992 , pp. 469 - 484
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Baker, M. (1985). The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation. LIn 16. 373–415.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1991). Some notes on the economy of derivation and representation. In Freidin, R. (ed.) Principles and parameters in comparative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 417–454.Google Scholar
Fukui, N. & Speas, M. J. (1986). Specifiers and projection. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 8. 128–172.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J. (1985). On semantics. LIn 16. 547–594.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J. (1987). Elucidations of meaning. Lexicon Project Working Paper 19.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kitagawa, Y. (1986). Subjects in Japanese and English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Y. (1988). Whether we agree or not. In Poser, W. (ed.) Papers from the Second International Workshop on Japanese Syntax. CSLI, Stanford. 103–143.Google Scholar
Larson, R. (1988). On the double object construction. LIn 19. 335–392.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, D. (1988). Language acquisition and the form of the grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. & Prince, A. (1990). Foot and word in prosodic morphology: the Arabic broken plural. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8. 209–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, S. (1982). Adverbs and Logical Form. Lg 58. 144–184.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (1978). Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 4. 157–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. (1989). Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP. LIn 20. 365–424.Google Scholar
Rapoport, T. (1987). Copular, nominal and small clauses: a study of Israeli Hebrew. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Travis, L. (1984). Parameters and effects of word order variation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Travis, L. (1988). The syntax of adverbs. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics: Special Issue on Comparative Germanic Syntax. 280–310.Google Scholar
Travis, L. (forthcoming). Derived objects, inner aspect, and the structure of VP. Proceedings of NELS XXI. Northeast Linguistics Society, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1985). NP Trace in Theta-theory. MS. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar