[
Adger, David. 2003. Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[Alexiadou, Artemis & Florian Schäfer. 2006. Instrument subjects are agents or causers. Proceedings of WCCFL 25. 40-48.
]Search in Google Scholar
[Bianchi, Valentina. 2000. The raising analysis of relative clauses: A reply to Borsley, Linguistic Inquiry 31. 123-140.
10.1162/002438900554316]Search in Google Scholar
[Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense: An exo-skeletal trilogy. New York: Oxford University Press.
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263905.001.0001]Search in Google Scholar
[Browning, Marguerite. 1987. Null operator constructions. Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.
]Search in Google Scholar
[Bruening, Benjamin. 2010. Ditransitive asymmetries and a theory of idiom formation. Linguistic Inquiry 41(4). 519-562.
10.1162/LING_a_00012]Search in Google Scholar
[Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
10.21236/AD0616323]Search in Google Scholar
[Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Peter W. Culicover, Thomas Wasow & Adrian Akmajian (eds.) Formal syntax. 71-132. New York: Academic Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Studies in Generative Grammar 9. Dordrecht: Foris.
]Search in Google Scholar
[Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. 89–155. MA: MIT Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 1-22.
10.1162/0024389052993655]Search in Google Scholar
[Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130. 33-49.
10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003]Search in Google Scholar
[Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[Collins, Chris. 1997. Argument sharing in serial verb constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 461-497.
]Search in Google Scholar
[Cowper, Elizabeth A. 1992. A consice introduction to syntactic theory. Chicago: University Chicago Press.
10.7208/chicago/9780226160221.001.0001]Search in Google Scholar
[De Belder, Marijke. 2011. Roots and affixes: Eliminating lexical categories from syntax. Utrecht University dissertation.
]Search in Google Scholar
[Demirdache, Hamida. 1991. Resumptive chains in restrictive relatives, appositives and dislocation structures. Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.
]Search in Google Scholar
[Di Sciullo, Anna Maria. 2005. Asymmetric morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10.7551/mitpress/1465.001.0001]Search in Google Scholar
[Grimshaw, Jane. 1979. Complement selection and the lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry 10. 279-326.
]Search in Google Scholar
[Grimshaw, Jane. 1981. Form, function and the language acquisition device. In Carl Lee Baker & John J. McCarthy (eds.), The logical problem of language acquisition. 165–182. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz.1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Kenneth L. Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The View from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, events, and licensing. Massachusetts Institute of Technology PhD thesis.
]Search in Google Scholar
[Harley, Heidi. 2005. Bare phrase structure, acategorial roots, one-replacement and unaccusativity. In Slava Gorbachov & Andrew Nevins (eds.), Harvard working papers on linguistics 9. 45–63. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[Henderson, Robert. 2014 (Under review). Swarms: Spatiotemporal grouping across domains. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002014.
]Search in Google Scholar
[Hole, Daniel. 2015. Arguments and adjuncts. In Tibor Kiss & Artemis Alexiadou (eds.), Syntax. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1285-1321.
]Search in Google Scholar
[Hornstein, Norbert and Jairo Nunes 2002. On asymmetries between parasitic gap and across-the-board constructions. Syntax 5. 26-54.
10.1111/1467-9612.00046]Search in Google Scholar
[Huang, James C-T. 1993. Reconstruction and the structure of VP: Some theoretical consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 103-138.
]Search in Google Scholar
[Jackendoff, Ray. 1987. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 369-411.
]Search in Google Scholar
[Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[Koopman, Hilda & Anna Szabolcsi. 2000. Verbal complexes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10.7551/mitpress/7090.001.0001]Search in Google Scholar
[Krifka, Manfred. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Ivan Sag & Aanna Szabolcsi (eds.), Lexical matters, 29–53. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
]Search in Google Scholar
[Landau, Idan. 2007. EPP extensions. Linguistic Inquiry 38(3). 485-483.
10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.485]Search in Google Scholar
[Lieber, Rochelle. 2004. Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[Lieber, Rochelle. 2006. The category of roots and the roots of categories: What we learn from selection in derivation. Morphology 16(2). 247-272.
10.1007/s11525-006-9106-2]Search in Google Scholar
[Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Alexis Dimitriadis & Laura Siegel (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium (University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics). 201–225. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
]Search in Google Scholar
[McNally, Louise. 2016. Modification. In Maria Aloni & Paul Dekker (eds.) Cambridge Handbook of Formal Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. In press.
10.1017/CBO9781139236157.016]Search in Google Scholar
[Munn, Alan 1992. A null operator analysis of ATB gaps. The Linguistic Review 9. 1-26.
10.1515/tlir.1992.9.1.1]Search in Google Scholar
[Odijk, Jan. 1997. C-selection and s-selection. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 365-371.
]Search in Google Scholar
[Pesetsky, David. 1992. Zero syntax, MA: MIT Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[Pollard, Carl and Ivan A. Sag. 1987. Information-based syntax and semantics. Volume 1: Fundamentals. CA: Center for the Study of Language and Informaton.
]Search in Google Scholar
[Pylkkänen, Liina. 1999. Causation and external arguments. In Liina Pylkkänen, Angeliek van Hout & Heidi Harley (eds.), Papers from the UPenn/MIT roundtable on the lexicon. 161–183. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL 35.
]Search in Google Scholar
[Ramchand, Gillian Catriona. 2008a. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/CBO9780511486319]Search in Google Scholar
[Ramchand, Gillian Catriona. 2008b. Lexical items in complex predications: Selection as underassociation. In Peter Svenonius & Inna Tolskaya (eds.), Tromsø working papers on language & linguistics: Nordlyd 35, special issue on complex predication. 115–141. CASTL, Tromsø.
10.7557/12.139]Search in Google Scholar
[Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar. 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7]Search in Google Scholar
[Sportiche, Dominique. 1995. Sketch of a reductionist approach to syntactic variation and dependencies. In Hector Campos & Paula Kempchinsky (eds.), Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory. 356-398. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[Tang, Chih-Chen Jane 1990. Chinese phrase structure and the extended X-theory. Cornell University PhD dissertation.
]Search in Google Scholar
[Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
10.7591/9781501743726]Search in Google Scholar
[Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1974. French relative clauses. Massachusetts Institute of Technology PhD dissertation.
]Search in Google Scholar
[Webelhuth, Gert. 1992. Principles and parameters of syntactic saturation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[Williams, Edwin S. 1977. Across-the-board application of rules, Linguistic Inquiry 8. 419-423.
]Search in Google Scholar
[Williams, Edwin S. 1978. Across-the-board rule application, Linguistic Inquiry 9. 31-43.
]Search in Google Scholar
[Wiltschko, Martina. 2014. The Universal structure of categories: Towards a formal typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/CBO9781139833899]Search in Google Scholar
[Zhang, Niina Ning. 2012. Projecting semantic features. Studia Linguistica 66(1). 58-74.
10.1111/j.1467-9582.2012.01189.x]Search in Google Scholar
[Zhang, Niina Ning. 2013. Classifier structures in Mandarin Chinese. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
10.1515/9783110304992]Search in Google Scholar
[Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1987. Levels of representation in the lexicon and in the syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.
10.1515/9783110859928]Search in Google Scholar
