The Position of Adverbials
Mark R. Baltin
New York University
July 25, 2004
I.Introduction
This paper will demonstrate that the distinction between arguments and adverbials is
reflected in initial phrase-structure, pace Larson (1988), rather than simply in the lexical
entries of verbs.
II. The distinction between subcategorized and non-subcategorized elements
Within the history of generative grammar, there have been roughly two strains of
thought about the position of adverbials. The first strain of thought can, I believe, be
traced to Chomsky (1965), in his constraint on the domain of subcategorization, local
subcategorization:
(1) If  subcategorizes ,  is dominated by the first node dominating .
What is noteworthy about this formulation is its weakness. It speaks of the situation in
which an element subcategorizes another element, and says that the latter must be
dominated by the first node above the former. However, what of the situation in which an
element is not subcategorized? Typical examples of such elements are locatives,
temporals, benefactives, and conditionals, to name but a few. Such examples can occur
generally, as opposed to objects, the PPs in (2)(a) and (2)(b), the AP in (2)(c), and the
CP in (2)(d):
(2)(a) He dashed into the schoolyard.
(b) He alluded to his drinking problem.
( c) He became angry.
1
(d) He complained that he was hungry.
Examples of non-subcategorized elements are underlined in (3):
(3)(a) He visited Sally in Boston.
(b) He visited Sally on her birthday.
(c) He visited Sally for Susan.
(d) He will visit Sally if John does.
One school of thought has strengthened local subcategorization to a bi-conditional,
as in (4):
(4)  is dominated by the first node dominating ,  an X0, if and only if 
subcategorizes .
In other words, non-subcategorized elements, in the stronger view of local
subcategorization, would have to be generated outside of a lexical head’s immediate
projection. There are a number of possibilities: base-generating such elements as
adjoined to some higher projection (Jackendoff (1977)), generating the elements as
separate phrase-markers and adjoining them to a higher projection by a generalized
transformation (Lebeaux (1988), Chomsky (1993), Fox (2002)), or generating such
elements as specifiers of functional projections outside of the projection of a lexical head
(Cinque (1999)).
The second school of thought, exemplified best, I believe, by Larson (1988),
allows such adverbials to be generated within the verb’s immediate projection, and
would presumably distinguish these elements from internal arguments by some extraphrase-structural means, such as an absence of lexical specification in the verb’s lexical
entry. He presents the thematic hierarchy in (5):
2
(5) Experiencer<Goal< Theme<Obliques
With the adverbials under discussion being generated as obliques. The
interpretation of this hierarchy is that if an element A outranks an element B on the
hierarchy, A must be generated higher in the phrase-marker than B. For example, (6)
would have the structure in (7):
(6) John visited Sally on Tuesday.
(7) CP
C’
C
TP
T’
DP
T
Past
vP
DP
John
v’
v
VP
DP
V’
Sally
V
visit
PP
on Tuesday.
The main verb, visit in this case, will move to v. One argument that Larson gives
for this approach is that it allows for coordinations such as the one in (8):
(8) John visited Sally on Tuesday and Mary on Saturday.
If we posited a structure in which the adverbial is adjoined, say to V’, as in (9),
we would have to posit a coordination of non-constituents for (8), problematic on several
grounds. By adopting the structure in (7), (8) becomes unproblematic, a simple
3
coordination of VPs, in which the verb visit will undergo across-the-board verb
movement to v.
Another argument against the adjoined structure for adverbials in (9)-indeed, more
generally, against any argument in which the object is not higher in the phrase-marker
than the adverbial-comes from considerations of binding, such as Principle A:
(9)
CP
C’
C
TP
T’
DPi
John
T
VP
Past
V’
DPi
t V’
PP
V
D”
visit
Sally
on Tuesday
(10)Principle A: An anaphor must be bound in its local domain.
The definition of binding is given in (11), and the definition of c-command in (12):
(11) Binding=def.  binds  if and only if  c-commands  and  and  are coindexed.
(12)C-command=def.  c-commands  if and only if  does not dominate  and the first
node dominating  dominates  as well.
4
We can see, then, that the object must bind into the adverbial, and hence must ccommand it, by noting that an object can be the antecedent for an anaphor contained
within the adverbial:
(13)I visited the studentsi on each otheri’s birthdays.
Similarly, a pronoun related to a quantifier must be c-commanded by the
quantifier (Higginbotham (1980)), in order to be interpreted as a variable bound by the
quantifier. Assuming that this is correct, we note that a pronoun within an adverbial can
function as a variable bound by a quantified object:
(14)I visited many prisonersi after theiri lawyers visited themi.
Grammatical relationships that depend on c-command, then, would seem to
favor a Larsonian structure such as (7) for adverbials rather than an adjoined structure
such as (9), for it is within the former structure that objects c-command the adverbials,
whereas they do not in the adjoined structure. Taken together with Larson’s analysis of
coordinations of objects plus adverbials, we have a prima facie case for the structure in
(7), in which adverbials are generated lower in the VP than objects.
I will now show that there are other strong considerations that militate for
structures in which the adverbials are outside of the VP. First, consider sentences such
as (15):
(15) I visited many studentsi after theiri lawyers did__.
The structure for (5 (next page), assuming Larson’s structure, would be as in
(16) (focusing only on the TP). In this case, the deleted VP, indicated as deleted by
bolding, is contained within its antecedent. Unless some mechanism now gets the null
VP out of its antecedent, this is a case of the much-discussed antecedent-contained
5
deletion (henceforth ACD) ( Bouton (1970), May (1985), Baltin (1987), Larson & May
(1990), Fox (2002) and many others), and would lead to ungrammaticality if the null
VP is allowed to remain within its antecedent, due to an infinite regress problem in
determining its antecedent’s identity. In other words, if the interpretation of the null VP
is obtained by copying the antecedent into the null VP, because the antecedent itself
contains the null VP, one will have to keep copying the antecedent into the null VP in
order to make the antecedent complete. Because the result of copying will always leave
a null VP, the copying will never complete.
(16)
TP
T’
T
Past
vP
DP
I
v’
v
VP
DP
Many prisonersi
V’
V
visit
PP
P
TP
after
DP
DP
D’
T’
T
theiri lawyers did
vP
e
One influential view as to how to resolve the problem of antecedent-contained
deletion (henceforth ACD) has invoked quantifier-raising at LF out of the antecedent VP
6
(May (1985)’s idea). One might reasonably take the subordinate clause ACD as being
resolved by LF movement out of the antecedent, in which case the possibility of ACD
here would tell us nothing about the overt position of the subordinate clause.
Most examples of ACD have focused on relative clauses that contain the null VP, as
in (17):
(17) I ate everything you did___.
There have been two main approaches to ACD in the literature: the LFevacuation approach, originally advocated in May (1985), which situates the null VP
within its antecedent in the overt syntax, but removes it by an LF operation, Quantifier
Raising, so that the null VP is not within its antecedent at LF; and the overt evacuation
approach, advocated in Baltin (1987), in which the null VP is removed from its
antecedent by an overt operation ( such as extraposition, as advocated in Baltin (1987)).
It is clear that at least some cases of ACD would be straightforwardly resolved by
placing the null VP outside of its antecedent in the first place.
In this case, for instance, adverbial subordinate clauses are treated as nonquantificational modifiers in most standard semantics texts (Larson & Segal (1995),
Heim & Kratzer (1998)). Hence, the QR approach is at least inconsistent with the
semantic treatment of adverbial modifiers. We can still capture the fact that antecedent
resolution in apparent ACD cases tracks scope by reading scope off of the overt
syntactic structure. Fox and Nissenbaum, (2002), for example, note that ACD forces a
de re reading of the subordinate clause when the matrix clause is included in the
antecedent VP for the null VP in (18).
(18) (Fox and Nissenbaum’s (3):
7
a. Room 1 wants to have dinner before Room 2 does < want to have dinner>
b. Room 1 wants to have dinner before Room 2 does < have dinner>.
As they note, (18)(a) has only the de re reading, while (18)(b) has the de dicto
reading. However, we can simply posit one structure for the adverbial in which it is
included within the matrix VP, forcing the de dicto reading, and another in which it is
outside of it, yielding the de re reading. In this way, the adjunct is never contained
within the VP to which it is adjoined, and its scope is read off of its adjunction position.
In short, sentences such as (15) are interesting because they impose two
apparently contradictory requirements. The variable-binding of the pronoun within the
adverbial is forcing the adverbial to be lower than the object, while the ellipsis
resolution of the null VP within the adverbial is forcing the adverbial to be outside of the
VP.
I would suggest that the contradiction is resolved by placing the adverbial outside
of the VP, and moving the object to a position still higher than the adverbial. I will
spell this out in Section IV, but before doing so, I would like to provide another piece
of evidence that the adverbial is generated, and remains, outside of the VP.
III.British English Do
British English contains a type of VP-anaphora which looks,to all intents and purposes,
like a variant of VP-ellipsis, so that (19)(a) and (19)(b) are, as far as I can determine,
equivalent:
(19)(a) John will read the book, and Fred will__, too.
(b) John will read the book, and Fred will do, too.
8
However, there is a crucial difference between VP-ellipsis and British English
do-anaphora. A VP-ellipsis gap, as is well-known (see, e.g., Hankamer & Sag (1976)
and, for a recent lucid discussion of this issue, Johnson (2001)), exhibits internal
structure, in the sense that it must house elements that would have originated in an overt
phrasal counterpart of the gap. For example, VP-internal wh-phrases can appear within
the gap:
(20)Although I don’t know which book Fred will read, I do know which book
Tom will[____t].
Also, an understood quantified object within the VP-ellipsis gap can take inverse
scope over the subject, presumably by QR of the object over the subject:
(21) Some man will read every book, and some woman will __too. (allows the
understood every book to scope over some woman).
Lasnik (1995) also provides evidence that internal arguments extract from an
elided VP in the pseudo-gapping construction:
(22)a. Although he didn’t give books to Sally, he did__magazines.
b.Although he wouldn’t put books on the table, he would___on the
mantlepiece.
When we turn our attention to British English do-anaphora, however, we find a
striking contrast. British English do does not tolerate any of the diagnostics for internal
structure, so that wh-traces are impossible within the VP covered up by do.
(23)* Although I don’t know which book Fred will read, I do know which book
Tom will do.
Inverse scope is impossible in the British English do construction:
9
(24)Some man will read every book, and some woman will do too. (can only be
understood with the subject scoping over the object in both clauses.).
The pseudo-gapping construction is impossible in the British English do
construction:
(25)*Although I won’t put the book on the table, I will do__on the mantelpiece.
Given this, we would not want to derive British English do in the same way in
which we derive the VP-ellipsis construction. The most natural account of the difference
would be to derive VP-ellipsis by deletion of the VP after the relevant operations ( whmovement, QR, A-movement in the pseudo-gapping construction) occur, while British
English do would really be a Pro- VP. For concreteness, let us follow Postal’s (1966)
view of pronouns as determiners, and view British English do as v (or perhaps a lexical
instantiation of Kratzer’s (1994) category Voice). In short, the overt pro-form is really a
functional head, but perhaps a syntactically intransitive one, lacking a lexical
complement in the syntax but having the semantic features of its typical complement in
its lexical representation. Because the complement (in this case, a VP, but for typical
pronouns, an NP) is not present syntactically, there would be no source for elements that
would have to be generated within the complement. Hence, the structure of a clause with
British English do will be as in (26):
10
(26)
C”
C’
C
T”
D”
T’
John
T
M”
Past
M’
M
v”
will
D” v’
t
v
do
Given the lack of a syntactic VP, we can now test the hypothesis that adverbials
originate within the VP. We would predict ,if VP-internal generation were correct, that
the adverbial would not be able to co-occur with British English do, just as other
elements which are assumed to have a VP-internal origin cannot. However, VP-internal
origination for these adverbials is disconfirmed. Such adverbials occur perfectly in this
construction, as we can see for the locative and benefactive, two examples:
(27)a,.Although he wouldn’t visit Sally on her birthday, he would do on
her
anniversary.
b.Although he wouldn’t bake a cake for Sally, he would do for Mary.
We have seen, then, two pieces of evidence for a VP-external origin for the
adverbials that are overtly c-commanded by the object. Our task, then, is to reconcile
this evidence with the evidence for the object’s c-command of the adverbial, and
11
Larson’s observations about non-constituent co-ordination.
This will be done in the
next section.
IV.An AlternativeStructure
To recap, we need a clausal structure that will have the following two properties:
1. the adverbial must be outside of the VP which it
modifies;
2. (ii) VP-internal material must c-command the
adverbial.
On the face of it, these two properties would seem to be contradictory. The
contradiction is illusory, however. I will now try to posit a structure that satisfies these
two requirements.
Let us first consider a simple sentence with a transitive verb, such as (28):
(28 ) John visited Sally.
A great deal of evidence has accumulated for the position of Johnson (1991) that
objects move overtly out of the VP, so that the structure of (28) is at least (29):
12
(29) C”
C’
C
T”
D” i
John
T’
T
Past
V”0
D” i
t
V’
Agr”
Vk
Visit
D” j
Sally
Agr’
Agr
V”1
V’
Vk
D”j
t
t
Lasnik (1995) takes pseudo-gapping to provide evidence for the structure in
(29).Pseudo-gapping, as exemplified in (30), is analyzed as VP-ellipsis of V”1, after the
remnant has moved out.
(30)
Although he didn’t visit Martha, he did ___Sally.
Evidence for pseudo-gapping as phrasal deletion is seen in (31), in which
sequences larger than a single word delete.
13
(31)
Although he wouldn’t give books to Sally, he would___magazines.
Baltin (2003) shows that all internal arguments of a verb have to be allowed to
vacate V”1, as can be seen in (32), allowing for multiple arguments to be stranded:
(32)
Although I wouldn’t give books to Martha, I would ___magazines to
Sally.
In Lasnik’s analysis, if V”1 does not delete, V1, the head, moves to v (V0 here).
Baltin (2002) argues, however, that the verbal movement is phrasal movement, remnant
movement, rather than head movement, on the basis of examples such as (33):
(33)
Although I didn’t try to persuade Sally, I did____Martha.
Hence, the structure of (34) would have to be (35):
(34)
(35)
I tried to persuade Martha.
C”
C’
C
T”
D”
I
T’
T
Z”
Past
V”
tried to persuade
Z’
Z
Agr”
D”
Martha
Agr’
Agr
V”
t
A couple of comments about (35) are in order. First, with respect to the movement of
V”,, I analyze it as movement to the specifier position of a higher functional projection,
14
which I label Z here for expository convenience. I suspect that Z is really Pred0, as in
Bowers (1993), given that the same considerations that motivate verbal movement in
the instances of pseudo-gapping in the literature hold for movement of complex
adjectival constructions, as in (36), discussed in Baltin (2002), as well as of predicate
nominals such as (37), originally noted by Chris Collins.
(36)Although he isn’t very fond of Sally, he is__of Martha. (understood: very
fond).
(37) Although he isn’t a student of physics, he is__of chemistry.
In any event, Johnson (2001) identifies the movement of the argument out of V”1
in the pseudo-gapping construction as the same process of object scrambling in Dutch,
which operates out of infinitives into matrix clauses and which Baltin (2003) shows to be
A-movement. V” would then move to [Spec, Z”], in this case as remnant movement.
Second, as an anonymous reviewer points out, the movement of the embedded
infinitive object is to the Spec of the matrix Agr”, rather than the embedded Agr:. This
type of long A-movement out of an infinitive into a matrix clause is an instance of what
is known as restructuring, originally discussed as clause union in a relational grammar
framework by Aissen & Perlmutter (1976), and a transformational framework by Rizzi
(1978). In earlier analyses of restructuring, the embedded predicate amalgamates or
incorporates with the matrix predicate, causing a bi-clausal structure to compress into a
mono-clausal structure.
In more recent treatments of restructuring, such as those of Burzio(1986) and
Wurmbrand (2003), the phenomenon of restructuring is viewed as being due to an
impoverished clausal structure in the infinitive, so that Wurmbrand analyzes the
15
infinitive as lacking an Agr projection, causing the embedded object to have to move to
the matrix. Her evidence for this comes from German, in which the matrix verb
passivizes and the embedded object becomes the matrix subject, indicating that it is the
matrix Case that is suppressed in passive.
An example is given in (38) (Wumrbrand’s 2(6)a)
(38)
dass der
Traktor
zu reparieren versucht wurde.
That the tractor-NOM to repair
tried was.
That they tried to repair the tractor.
I am analyzing the long A-movement of the embedded object in (35) as exactly
the same phenomenon, as an instance of restructuring in the Burzio-Wurmbrand sense of
an impoverished infinitive projection.
In short, there is a great deal of evidence for movement of verbal complements,
followed by remnant movement of the VP, from the original positions of these elements.
With this in mind, we are now in a position to account for the crucial properties of
adverbials, (i) and (ii), that were isolated at the beginning of this section
Cinque (2002) develops an analysis of adverbials that was originally proposed in
Cinque (1999), which takes clause structure to be much more articulated than has
previously been thought. In this analysis, functional heads such as Temp (for temporal),
Ben (for benefactive), etc. are posited, and the relevant adverbials are specifiers of these
distinct heads. Hence, we could posit a structure such as (39), for, e.g., (5):
16
(39)
C”
C’
C
T”
D”i
I
T’
T
v”
Past V”k
D”i
t
v’
V’
V
D”j
visit t
v
Agr”
D”j
Agr’
them
Agr
Temp”
P”
Temp’
On each
Temp
j
other ’s birthdays
V”k
t
In (39), Temp would be generated above the VP, but lower than [Spec,
Agr”], the home of the shifted object, and lower than [Spec, vP], the home of the
shifted VP.
Larson’s observations about coordination, in which the object and the adverbial can
coordinate, as in (8), repeated here, can easily be captured:
(8) John visited Sally on Tuesday and Mary on Saturday.
Looking at the structure in (39), the object is in [Spec, Agr-O”], and Agr-O takes
Temp” as a complement. We can coordinate the Agr-O”s, and the VPs in each Agr-O”
move in an across-the-board fashion to [Spec, v”]. Hence, we do not have nonconstituent coordination in this analysis
17
V. Evidence for the Constituency of Verb Plus Complements
A significant feature of my analysis of the verb plus complements in English is that the
sequence does not form a constituent,i.e. a VP. This would appear to pose a significant
problem for my analysis, and would seem to fly in the face of the standard diagnostic for
constituency, in which only constituents are thought to move. With this assumption, VPpreposing, as in (40), would seem to contradict the claim that the verb plus its
complements do not end up forming a (VP) constituent:
(40) [VP visit them] though he may,….
In Baltin (2003), however, I show that the movement of a verb plus
complements in VP-preposing is not in fact a single movement of a VP, but rather is a
sequence of movements, of the complements of a verb out of the VP to the front of the
clause, followed by the verb plus its specifiers. In short, I am claiming that while a
single VP exists initially in a derivation, it does not exist at the end of a derivation. My
evidence for what could be called “The Non-Constituent VP” comes from a
consideration of a paradox first noted, to the best of my knowledge, by Pesetsky (1995),
called “Pesetsky’s Paradox”. The paradox comes from an apparent conflict between two
otherwise well-motivated considerations in syntax: (i) the assumption that binding
requires c-command; (ii) only constituents move. This conflict is seen in sentences such
as (41) :
(41) Visit themi though he may on each otheri’s birthdays.
The binding between the fronted object and the anaphor within the adverbial would
require, under assumption (i), that the object c-command, and hence be higher in the
18
phrase-marker, than the adverbial, but assumption (i) would require that the verb plus
object not form a constituent to the exclusion of the adverbial. This consequence would
predict, under assumption (ii), that the verb plus object would not be able to move as a
unit to the exclusion of the adverbial, incorrectly excluding (41). If the object moves
separately from the remnant VP in the preposing construction, however, the paradox is
solved.
VI. Covert Vs. Overt Movement
Hornstein (1995) assumes covert movement of objects to [Spec, Agr-O”] in order to
check accusative Case. In a recent paper, Landau (2004) exploits Hornstein’s covert
movement in his analysis of Pesetsky’s Paradox.
My solution of Pesetsky’s Paradox, as well as Landau’s relies on movement of
the object to a position higher than the adverbial. The considerations in Sections II and
III of this paper indicate that the adverbial must originate outside of the VP, and there is
nothing in Landau’s paper that is inconsistent with this conclusion. If binding occurs at
LF, as is standardly assumed in Minimalism (Chomsky (1993), the considerations about
variable-binding and anaphoric binding would be equally valid under both covert and
overt movement views of the object.
However, as I show in detail in Baltin (2003) with respect to the treatment of
Pesetsky’s Paradox, pseudo-gapping provides evidence for overt movement, and
there seem to be restrictions on pseudo-gapping, dealt with in that paper, indicating
that the object at times either does not move, or, more likely, moves fairly close to its
original position, and Pesetsky’s Paradox effects seem to fail to show up in those
environments. It is difficult to see how a covert movement approach would predict
19
these correlations. The coordination facts, I believe, provide an additional
argument in favor of the overt movement approach for the object. If the movement is
overt, we can coordinate constituents in the overt syntax, while a covert movement
approach would require that the object and adverbial be a non-constituent in the overt
syntax, with coordination therefore being of non-constituents, and constituency being
later created at LF. It is difficult to see how the overt coordination of nonconstituents would be implemented.
V.
Conclusion
In this paper, I have tried to provide a variant of the stronger approach to local
subcategorization, in which non-subcategorized elements are outside of the
subcategorization domain of a lexical head. The evidence for the low position of these
adverbials is in fact evidence for the height of the objects relative to them.
References:
Aissen, Judith, & David Perlmutter
(1976), “Clause Reduction in Spanish”, in Henry Thompson, Kenneth Whister,
Vicki Edge, Jeri Jaeger, Ronya Javkin, Miriam Petrick, Christopher Smeall and Robert
D. Van Valin Jr. (eds.), Proceedings of the Second Annual Meeting of the Berkeley
Linguistic Socitey (BLS 2). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistic Society
Baltin, Mark
(1987) “ Do Antecedent-Contained Deletions Exist?”, Linguistic Inquiry,
18, 4, 279-295.
(2002) “ Movement to the Higher V Is Remnant Movement”, Linguistic Inquiry,
33, 4, 653-659.
20
(2003a) “The Interaction of Ellipsis and Binding: Implications for the
Sequencing of Principle A”, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory,. 21,2, 215-246.
(2003b), “A Remnant Movement Account of Pesetsky’s Paradox”, paper
presented at WECOL, University of Arizona and the NYU Workshop on Remnant
Movement
Bouton, Lawrence
(1970), “Antecedent-Contained Pro-Forms”, CLS 5
Bowers, John
(1993) “ The Syntax of Predication”, Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 4, 591-656.
Burzio, Luigi
(1986), Italian Syntax, Dordrecht, Kluwer
Chomsky, Noam
(1965), Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
(1993), “A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory”, in K. Hale & S.J. Keyser,
eds., The View From Building 20, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
-----------, and Howard Lasnik
(1995), “Principles and Parameters Theory”, in N. Chomsky, The Minimalist
Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Cinque, Guglielmo
(1999), Adverbs and Functional Heads, Oxford University Press
(2002), “Complement and Adverbial PPs”, paper presented at GLOW,
University of Hyderabad, India
21
Fox, Danny
(2002) “ Antecedent-Contained Deletion and The Copy Theory of
Movement”, Linguistic Inquiry, 33, 1, 63-96.
--------- and Nissenbaum, Jon.(1999)
“ Extraposition and Scope: A Case for Overt QR.” in Sonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason
D. Haugen, and Peter Norquest, eds., (1999) Proceedings of WCCFL 18. 132-144. 99.
Somerville, MA, Cascadilla Press.
Hankamer, Jorge, and Ivan Sag (1976)
“Deep and Surface Anaphora”, Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 7, No. 3
Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer (1998),
Semantics in Generative Grammar, Blackwell & Sons, Oxford, U.K.
Higginbotham, James (1980),
“Pronouns and Bound Variables”, Linguistic Inquiry, Vol.
11
Hornstein, Norbert (1995)
, Logical Form: From GB to Minimalism, Blackwell & Sons, Oxford, U.K.
Jackendoff, Ray (1977),
X-Bar Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Johnson, Kyle (1991)
“Object Positions”, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 9, 4, 577-636.
(2001)
22
“ What VP-Ellipsis Can Do, and What It Can't, But Not Why”. In M. Baltin and
C. Collins (eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Oxford, U.K.:
Blackwell & Sons.
Kayne, Richard (1998),
“Covert vs. Overt Movements”, Syntax, Vol. 1
Koizumi, Masatoshi (1995).
. Phrase-Structure in Minimalist Syntax. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Kratzer, Angelika (1994)
, “Severing the External Argument for the Verb”, unpublished ms., University of
Massachusetts, Amherst
Landau, Idan (2004),
“Partial VP-Fronting”, unpublished ms., Ben-Gurion University, Israel
Larson, Richard K. (1988)
“ On the Double Object Construction”, Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 2, 335-391.
--------- and Robert May (1990),
23
“Antecedent-Contained Deletion or Vacuous Movement: Reply to Baltin”,
Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 20
-------- and Gabriel Segal(1995),
Knowledge of Meaning, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Lasnik, Howard (1995) “A Note on Pseudo-Gapping”, MIT Working Papers in
Linguistics
Lebeaux, David (1988),
Language Acquisition and the Form of Grammars, unpublished Doctoral
dissertation, UMass., Amherst
Lobeck, Ann (1995),
Ellipsis, Oxford University Press
May, R. (1985)
Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pesetsky, David (1995)
, Zero Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Postal, Paul. (1969).
“On So-Called Pronouns in English”, in D. Reibel & S. Schane, eds., Modern
Studies In English, Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, New York
Rizzi, Luigi (1978)
,” A Restructuring Rule In Italian Syntax.” In Samuel Jay Keyser (ed.), Recetn
Transformational Studies in European Languages. Cambridge, Mass.; MIT Press.
24
-------- (1990),
Relativized Minimality, MIT Press
Wurmbrand, Susi (2003).
Infinitives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
25
26
27