Publishing Partner: Cambridge University Press CUP Extra Publisher Login
amazon logo
More Info


New from Oxford University Press!

ad

Oxford Handbook of Corpus Phonology

Edited by Jacques Durand, Ulrike Gut, and Gjert Kristoffersen

Offers the first detailed examination of corpus phonology and serves as a practical guide for researchers interested in compiling or using phonological corpora


New from Cambridge University Press!

ad

The Languages of the Jews: A Sociolinguistic History

By Bernard Spolsky

A vivid commentary on Jewish survival and Jewish speech communities that will be enjoyed by the general reader, and is essential reading for students and researchers interested in the study of Middle Eastern languages, Jewish studies, and sociolinguistics.


New from Brill!

ad

Indo-European Linguistics

New Open Access journal on Indo-European Linguistics is now available!


Email this page
E-mail this page

Review of  WCCFL 20


Reviewer: Sharbani Banerji
Book Title: WCCFL 20
Book Author: Karine Megerdoomian Leora Anne Bar-el
Publisher: Cascadilla Press
Linguistic Field(s): Linguistic Theories
Phonetics
Phonology
Semantics
Syntax
Book Announcement: 13.3172

Discuss this Review
Help on Posting
Review:


Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 15:16:15 +0530
From: Sharbani Banerji <kajoli123@now-india. net. in>
Subject: Megerdoomian & Bar-el (2002) WCCFL 20

Megerdoomian, Karine, and Leora Anne Bar-el, ed. (2002) WCCFL 20:
Proceedings of the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics.
Cascadilla Press, 669pp, paperback ISBN 1-57473-043-6, $40.00.

Sharbani Banerji, Ghaziabad, India

INTRODUCTION
This volume is an edited collection of 48 papers by different authors,
that were part of the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics,
held at the University of Southern California on February 23-25, 2001.
What follows is a description of the conclusions reached in each of the
papers, and a very short evaluation of the book as a whole.

SUMMARY
1. Phases and Interpretability, by David Adger and Gillian Ramchand
The authors adopt a classical Chomsky (1977) approach to the
construction of the semantics of relatives on the basis of a syntax
using two features (Lambda and identifiability-features). This,
according to them, captures a rich and complex system across Celtic
Languages like Scottish Gaelic, Irish, Welsh, etc. They make a
distinction between syntactic dependencies which are triggered by the
requirements of uninterpretable features, and which therefore obey
locality (here phasal) conditions, and a semantic binding dependency
which is sensitive merely to c-command. The operation mediating
syntactic dependency is Agree and not Move. The interpretability of a
feature is dependent not only on the particular head that it occurs on,
but also potentially on other formal features of that head. The two
features relevant to Relativization are Lambda and Var: Lambda is
interpreted at LF as something which creates a predicate from a
proposition, so that a CP containing a Lambda feature will be
interpreted as a predicate which abstracts over some variable. This is
the syntactic correlate of 'lambda abstraction'. Var is one of a set of
identifiability features, which appear on syntactic objects so that
they can be semantically identified. The other prime case of
identifiability features are phi- features. Var and phi are two
complementary ways of identifying pronouns as variables at LF.
Standardly (Chomsky 1977) relative clauses are assumed to involve
movements of a null operator to the specifier of CP. The interpretation
of this operator is essentially that of a 'lambda abstractor', which
binds the position of a trace as in (1).
(1) Op that the giant saw t
The authors propose that the operator is a pro bearing a Var feature
which is in its base position when the relative dependency is
established. The relative complementizer bears a Lambda feature and
agrees with the pro. They assume that 'pro' bears an uninterpretable
Lambda feature [uLambda], and that C bears an uninterpretable Var
feature [uVar]. This gives:
(2) that[Lambda, uVar] the giant saw pro [uLambda, Var]
In their approach, movement is driven only by the EPP feature. Since
Celtic lacks such a feature, only Agree takes place, but not Move.

2. Diathesis Alternations and Rule Interaction in the Lexicon, by Raúl
Aranovich and Jeffrey T. Runner
Wasow (1977) argues that there are two different types of rules:
lexical rules and transformational rules. Whereas adjectival passives
are derived lexically, verbal passives are derived transformationally.
The authors try to capture Wasow's insight in lexicalist framework like
HPSG. They build on the analysis of Sag & Wasow (1999) who argue that
there are two types of lexical entries: lexemes and words. They claim
that there is a contrast between lexical rules that relate lexemes to
lexemes (L-to L rules) and lexical rules that relate words to words (W-
to-W rules). L-to-L rules may affect the lexical semantics of lexical
items (viz. , changing the number and nature of semantic roles, or the
semantic structure of a predicate), while W-to-W rules only affect its
argument structure (i. e. , changing the grammatical functions assigned
to the semantic roles). The authors use this distinction to explain
certain differences between dative shift(DS) and Spray/Load(S/L)
alternation. They claim that DS is a W-to-W rule and that S/L
alternation is an L-to-L rule. Baker (1997) argues that DS is a
transformational rule, and that S/L alternation a lexical rule. They
however reject Baker's claim that it reflects a syntax vs lexicon
dichotomy. According to them, they are two different lexical rule
types.

3. Conjunction Weakening and Morphological Plurality, by Ron Artstein
This paper argues that multiple plurality outside the nominal domain
should be taken as evidence that plural morphology on an expression
excludes singularities from its denotation, and that cumulative
conjunction is an operation that is generally available. The limited
occurrence of cumulative conjunction is the result of the strongest
meaning hypothesis and syntactic number of conjoined adjective phrases.
How come coordinated singular APs form a singular AP, whereas
coordinated singular NPs form a plural NP? The difference does not lie
in the semantics of coordination, because cumulative coordination is
available for plural adjectives. The author examines a characteristic
called 'multiple plurality', where the conjunction of two
morphologically plural predicates requires a subject whose denotation
consists of at least four individuals. This should be taken as evidence
that plural expressions only include plural entities in their
extension, and as evidence for the existence of cumulative ('non-
Boolean') conjunction on predicates. He assumes a structured domain of
individuals, where plural objects are of the same type as singular
individuals, namely type 'e'. His claim is that expressions that bear
plural morphology only include plural objects in their extensions, and
thus contrast with expressions that lack number marking.

4. A [+interpretable] Number Feature on Verbs: Evidence from Squamish
Salish, by Leora Bar-el, Peter Jacobs, and Martina Wiltschko
The authors propose that in Squamish, the number feature on verbs is
[+(int)erpretable]. In Chomsky's (1995) system, [+int] features do not
have to be deleted. Since in Squamish, number on verbs is [+int], it
does not have to be deleted. This means, number on verbs should receive
an interpretation in Squamish. There are two types of number markers on
verbs. (i)The verbal plural marker 'wa' pluralizes events and not
individuals. (ii)plural on verbs can be marked by the same morpheme as
plural on nouns (CVC reduplication). This proposal predicts that
subject verb agreement in Squamish should be optional. It is optional
in two ways:(I) plural agreement marking is optional (II) a plural
marker can indicate the plurality of the subject or object or both.
When reduplication attaches to verbs, it yields plural events. This
plurality results in readings of habitual, iterative and intensive
events.

5. Integrity: A Syntactic Constraint ON Quantificational Scoping, by
Chris Barker
The paper proposes that quantifier scope alternations respect syntactic
constituency according to the syntactic constituent integrity scoping
constraint (Integrity) defined as:
(1) If there is a syntactic constituent that contains B and C but
not A, then A must take scope over both B and C or neither.
The thrust of Integrity is that quantifier scoping sticks much closer
to surface constituency than suggested by traditional theories of
quantifier scope, thus indicating that we are one step closer to
eliminating Logical Form as an indispensable level of grammatical
representation. The need to represent the full range of quantifier
scopings is one of the leading motivations for theories that posit a
level of Logical Form(LF) distinct from surface structure. Allowing LF
to differ significantly from surface syntax severely weakens the
empirical force of the Principle of Compositionality. So, a theory that
does without LF is strongly preferred. If Integrity is correct, and if
there are compositional theories that respect integrity without
resorting to LF, then recognizing integrity calls into question the
need for LF as a distinct level of grammatical representation. If
Integrity is an empirically valid theory, it argues in favor of a in-
situ theory.

6. Partial Copying and Emergent Unmarkedness in Igbo Reduplication, by
Jill Beckman
The Correspondence based Optimality Theory (OT) approach to
reduplication developed in McCarthy & Prince (1995) provides an
elegant mechanism for capturing a variety of effects in the phonology
of reduplication. In this paper, the author examines the reduplication
patterns of Ònìcà Igbo. In this dialect, high-ranking markedness
constraints require the reduplicant vowel to be [+high]. When the base
vowel itself is [+high], full copying and featural identity result.
However, when the base vowel is non-high, copying fails, resulting in a
reduplicant vowel which is determined entirely by markedness
constraints. That is, the Igbo reduplication system is captured and
predicted by a model such as that of McCarthy and Prince (1995), in
which segment-level copying and feature level identity are governed
by separate and separately rankable constraints.

7. The Implications of Rich Agreement: Why Morphology Doesn't Drive
Syntax, by Jonathan David Bobaljik
This paper offers a critical evaluation of, and an alternative to, the
Rich Agreement Hypothesis:
(1) 'Rich' agreement is the cause of (overt) verb movement to Infl.
Its corollary would be:
(2) Loss of 'rich' inflection causes the loss of verb movement.
The leading idea is that morphological variation correlates with
syntactic variation because the syntax is projected from morphology. In
this paper, the author challenges the validity of (1). He gives counter
examples from Germanic languages to show that verb movement to Infl can
take place in the absence of rich morphology. However, the one-way
implication holds. viz.
(3) rich inflection -> verb movement to Infl.
The correctness of (3) follows from an approach that takes the syntax
to feed the morphology. He argues for the 'late insertion' model of the
framework of Distributed Morphology. On this model, overt morphological
variation can be seen not as a cause but the consequence of syntactic
variation. That is, languages vary in the inventory of functional
projections that make up the IP domain.

8. Resumptives as Derivational Residues, by Cedric Boeckx
The paper deals with the relation between a resumptive pronoun(RP) and
it's antecedent. The author claims that resumption is the result of
stranding under A-bar movement. Thus, the derivation would be like:
(1) [CP Whi[. . [VP. . [DP ti'[D ti]]]]]
Expectedly then, the RP can be found in intermediate landing sites, as
witnessed in Hebrew. The consequences of this proposal are the
following:
(a) The binder and the bindee start off as one constituent and are
separated in the course of the derivation by movement (Kayne
2000).
(b) Once the role of D projection is clearly defined, it would
account for the general absence of adverbial projections.
(c) The structure (1) is similar to the structure of D-linked WhPs,
and also to clitic doubling structures.
(d) The stranding approach converges on Kayne's structure of 'that-
relatives'.
(e) Wh-elements that can appear in a resumptive configuration turn
out to be rich enough to enter into partitive structure. That
is, resumption seems to be restricted to 'richer/D-linked WhPs'.
Though a structure like (1) violates the general ban on extraction out
of left branches, he explains the phenomenon in terms of agreement vs
non-agreement effects on extraction, by citing examples from a variety
of languages, and proves his thesis convincingly.

9. Maintaining Contrast in Nxa'amxcín Reduplication, by Ewa Czaykowska-
Higgins and Suzanne Urbanczyk
Languages tend to encourage phonological contrasts where semantic
contrasts also exist. This paper works on the data from Nxa'amxcín
(Interior Salish)in an Optimality Theoretic analysis of reduplicative
patterns, and argues for a new constraint DISTINCT FORM which evaluates
the relationship between form and meaning that underlies patterns of
contrast. They posit that the segmental difference between two CVC
shaped reduplicative morphemes are best explained by a requirement that
different functions have different forms. That is, DISTINCT FORM
demands that distinct meaning should have distinct forms. Comparison
with other such Anti-Identity models are also made.

10. Wh-Movement as Noun Incorporation in Nuu-Chah-Nulth, by Henry Davis
and Naomi Sawai
This paper provides a syntactic account of Wh-questions in Nuu-chah-
nulth, which they claim is a Wh-movement language, such that overt wh-
movement is motivated by a morphosyntactic requirement in which the
matrix C has a strong Wh-feature, which must be checked by the Wh-
feature on the interrogative element. Though traditionally this
movement is analyzed as phrasal movement of the Wh-XP to [Spec CP],
they claim that in Nuu-chah-multh, Wh-questions are derived solely by
head movement, the result of which is feature checking in Head-Head
configuration. They argue that Wh-questions in this language are
derived via three separate processes (i)incorporation of the Wh-word
into an incorporating predicate (ii)successive-cyclic movement of the
Wh-(pred)icate complex to Mood (iii) further raising of the Pred-Mood
complex to Comp.

11. On Inclusive Reference Anaphora: New Perspectives from Hungarian,
by Marcel Den Dikken, Anikó Lipták, and Zsófia Zvolenszky
Sentences in which an object overlaps in reference with a c-commanding
noun phrase in its local domain never involve a reflexive in English,
viz. , (1)a-c are all ungrammatical.
(1) a. *We saw/voted for/elected myself.
b. *I saw/voted for/elected ourselves
c. * he saw/voted for/elected ourselves.
When the reflexive in (1) is replaced by a pronoun, as in (2),
constructions are acceptable with additional semantic factors.
(2) a. We saw/voted for/elected me.
b. I saw/voted for/elected us
c. He saw/voted for/elected us.
Both Principle A of Chomsky's (1981) Binding Theory and Condition A of
Reinhart & Reuland's (1993) 'reflexivity' approach to binding guarantee
the ill formedness of (1). But to explain the data in (2), the paper
presents binding facts from Hungarian to show that:
(a) languages do not systematically rule out inclusive reference
with reflexives: Hungarian allows the counterpart of (1b).
(b) On the other hand, Hungarian accepts the counterpart of (2b)
with an out-of-the-ordinary type of object agreement only.
The paper exploits Hungarian data to make a case against the semantic
predicate based approach to Condition B of Reinhart & Reuland (1993),
and to argue for a syntactically complex representation of first person
plural pronouns, in terms of a comitative like structure. That is, the
standard Binding Theory of Chomsky (1981) can accommodate the inclusive
reference anaphora facts of Hungarian, and Principle B can make the
right predictions for the Hungarian pronoun cases given an
independently motivated analysis of first (and second) person plural
pronouns in terms of a comitative structure.

12. On Certain Head-Final Effects in Vietnamese, by Nigel Duffield
The Vietnamese modal element 'can' receives three distinct
interpretations depending on its clausal position.
(a) as a deontic modal in preverbal position
(b) as an aspectual element indicating accomplishment or
achievement, when it occurs immediately postverbally (c) as an
alethic (sometimes epistemic) modal, indicating ability
(possibility) in post VP position
It is the distribution of the latter that poses a challenge to the
proposed universals of phrase structure (Kayne 1995) and modal adverb
placement (Cinque 1999). Both previous treatments, one based on
Vietnamese data, the other on 'Thai', reconcile Vietnamese data with
Universal hierarchies through derivational analyses that have distinct
empirical consequences. This paper compares the formal contexts in
which the facts of Vietnamese and Thai crucially differ. It shows that
to account for the data, both sentential topic analysis and Control
analysis are required. The paper also highlights the need for a
cautious examination of areally and typologically related languages,
like Thai, which show subtle instances of microparametric variations.

13. On the Semantics of Pronouns and Definite Articles, by Paul
Elbourne
Though contemporary semantic theory recognizes three distinct uses of
third person pronouns, viz. bound-variable, referential and E-type, a
unified account of all the three types does not exist. An unified
account of the semantics of bound-variable and referential pronouns
however exists, in which they are all construed as variables
interpreted as variable assignments. E-type pronouns have been treated
as something altogether different. But, no language, according to the
author, makes any kind of lexical or morphological distinction between
referential and bound variable pronouns on one hand, and E-type
pronouns on the other. The author shows that it is possible to give an
unified treatment of pronouns. He bases his theory on the hypothesis
that pronouns have the semantics of definite articles. He shows that
pronouns are Fregean definite articles whose NP complement must be
phonologically null. If the complement is an NP-deleted common or
garden NP, we get E-type anaphora. If it is an index, we get
referential or bound variable anaphora. The pronouns and definite
articles are similar, but not the same lexical items. Definite articles
in English take two arguments, the inner one, an index, and the outer
one a common NP.

14. Paradigmatic Restrictions on Anaphors, by Martin Evaraert
The paper discusses how to account for the absence of nominative
reflexives in certain languages (Germanic, Romance) as in:
(1) a. *Mary(i) thinks that [herself(i) loves Bill]
b. *Gianni(i)i vuole che sei/se stesso(i) scriva un libro.
Gianni wants that himself writes a book.
To exclude nominative/subject anaphors, the author stipulates the
incompatibility of anaphors and agreement, the Anaphor Agreement (AA)
effect, first proposed in Rizzi (1990), and further developed in
Woolford (1999). The alternative approach makes crucial use of the
typology of anaphoric elements in the Reflexivity framework Reinhart &
Reuland (1993) combined with some basic assumptions of Chomsky (1995).
It is claimed that there is no AA effect other than the failure of some
anaphors, lacking full specification of phi-features, to enter into a
proper agreement relation with the verbal complex. It depends on the
verbal inflectional paradigm whether the underspecified or unspecified
anaphors can be licensed.

15. Getting Results: Motion Constructions in Italian and Scottish
Gaelic, by Raffaella Folli and Gillian Ramchand
The authors compare path of motion accomplishment structures in
English, Scottish Gaelic and Italian to argue in favour of (a) the
linguistic reality of the logical decomposition of accomplishments and
(b) the existence of a cluster of parameters which mediate the ways in
which accomplishments can be composed in a particular language. They
adopt the neo-Davidsonian semantic representation and also the
decompositional view of Hale & Keyser (1993) and others. They are
specifically concerned with the way 'telicity' is constructed in
natural language. They argue that result interpretations in natural
language are always represented semantically by the subevent structure
<process, telos>, called the telic pair.

16. Syncope Induced Metrical Opacity as a Weight Effect, by Mathew
Gordon
This paper shows that Optimality Theory can handle cases of stress
opacity triggered by syncope, given a sufficiently rich set of weight
constraints combined, in the case of Central Alaskan Yupik, with
hierarchically ordered faithfulness constraints sensitive to morphology
and position within a morpheme. Syncope has been shown to involve
deletion of the lightest syllables: open syllables containing short
vowels in Bedouin Hijazi Arabic and open syllables containing schwa in
Central Alskan Yupik. Many weight distinctions which are more clearly
evident in languages with relatively rich syllable structures reveal
themselves in other languages only when syncope creates the relevant
syllable types. These can be captured through a set of weight sensitive
stress constraints referring directly to stress rather than metrical
feet.

17. Split Scrambling: Barriers as Inviolable Constraints, by Maria
Gouskova
In contrast to English, Russian allows movement out of a DP. This kind
of movement is called 'split scrambling'. Both Topic and Foci can split
scramble. Topics moving to sentence-initial position, and Foci to
sentence-final position. Author argues that whereas DP is a barrier in
English, it is not so in Russian. The central question of the paper is
what determines the status of phrases as barriers cross-linguistically.
She claims that barriers are violable universal constraints in an
Optimality Theoretic grammar. Barrier constraints from a fixed
hierarchy, such that movement out of a DP or PP is cross-linguistically
more marked than movement out of a VP. The analysis predicts that no
language allows movement out of a DP or PP but bans the same type of
movement out of VP. Split scrambling arises from the conflict of two
opposing forces: constraints that demand movement on the one hand, and
constraints that oppose it on the other. In English, DP BARRIER
dominates the Foc/Topic alignment constraints, whereas in Russian, the
Alignment constraints force its violations. The barrier constraints are
a necessary addition to the set of universal constraints in OT syntax.
Adding them makes the right predictions if they are in a partially
fixed hierarchy. The barrier typology supports this hierarchy.

18. Comparative Quantifiers and Plural Predication, by Martin Hackl
The question asked is, to what extent the surface similarity of the
highlighted expressions reflect a deep/structural similarity?
(1) a. John read 'more than three books'.
b. John read 'more than half of the books'.
c. John read 'more books than papers'.
d. John read 'more books than Bill (did/read)'
e. John read 'more books than there are planets in the solar
system'.
The goal of the paper is to present an argument in favor of a uniform
analysis of all expressions underlined in (1) as comparative
constructions. The argument is based on the observation that
comparative quantifiers and amount comparatives impose the same
constraints on their environment. Both require that the NP and VP
predicates they combine with range over pluralities. The analysis
explains the observations as a consequence of the degree function MANY
providing the semantic core of both comparative quantifiers and amount
comparatives. Comparative determiners like 'more than three' receive a
compositional treatment as comparative construction.

19. Max-Position Drives Iterative Footing, by Nancy Hall
The author argues that several prosodic phenomena are better captured
if Max-Position constraints, rather than PARSE-sigma are the pressure
behind iterative footing. A language with iterative footing builds as
many feet per word as possible, while one with non-iterative footing
builds only one foot per word, aligned to one of the word edges. The
proposal is that PARSE-sigma should be abandoned. The pressure behind
iterative footing and a number of foot-related phenomena is better
captured by Max-position family of constraints. These constraints favor
maximal packing of input material into prominent output positions such
as onsets, root-initial syllables, and heads of feet. This approach
ties together a number of phenomena involving the interaction of
prosody and faithfulness, ascribing to them a single basic motivation.
The intuition is that higher prosodic structure exists to give
prominence to underlying material. Since underlying material is what
distinguishes one lexical item from another, 'prominence' has the
function of aiding in the recovery of the lexical entry.

20. Negation, Focus and Alternative Questions, by Chung-hye Han and
Maribel Romero
It is observed that negative non-wh-questions with inverted negation do
not have an alternative (alt-) question reading. In English, (1) has
two possible readings: yes-no(yn) question reading (1a), and alt-
question reading (1b).
(1) Did John drink coffee or tea?
a. 'Is it the case that John drank any of these two things,
coffee or tea?'
b. 'Which of these two things did John drink: coffee or tea?'
In case of negative questions, with non-inverted negation, both
readings are available as in (2).
(2) Did John not drink coffee or tea?
a. Yes, John did not drink coffee or tea (yn reading)
b. John did not drink coffee (alt-reading)
But in case of inverted negation, as in (3), though the yn-question
reading is available, the corresponding alt-question reading is no
longer available.
(3) Didn't John drink coffee or tea?
a. No, John did not drink coffee or tea (yn reading)
b. *John did not drink coffee (alt-reading)
The same interpretive asymmetry is found cross linguistically in a
number of languages. The authors propose that inverted negation in yn-
questions contributes focus marking on the polarity, and that the lack
of alt-reading results as a by-product of the interaction of polarity
focus and the LF syntax of alt-questions. According to the authors,
(i) the alt-questions involve ellipsis,
(ii) polarity Focus in C0 is always exhaustive, never contrastive,
(iii) Focus-marked constituents cannot be deleted.
In sum, inverted negation in a yn question contributes an extra focus
that cannot be licensed under the alt-reading. The inverted negation
contributes verum focus in yn-questions.

21. Event-Related Adjuncts and the OV/VO Distinction, by Roland
Hinterhölzl
The event related adverbs like Time, Place and Manner adverbs occur
preverbally in the order T > P > M in OV languages, but in exact mirror
image in VO languages as shown in (1):
(1) a. C TPM-V OV lgs
b. C V-MPT VO lgs
Some of their properties are:
(i) It is exactly these adjunct types, and not other adverbs,
which are correlated with the positioning of arguments
(ii) These adverb types are not rigidly ordered, given Cinque's
(1999) seminal work on adverbs.
(iii) These advPs are realized as PPs or bare NPs.
The word order facts are explained as follows. The reason why event
related adverbs appear postverbally in a VO-language like English
should neither be explained by linking the placement of these adverbs
to a directionality parameter (like the head-complement parameter) nor
to their presumptive property of being event predicates. Instead, it is
argued that this property should be related to the fact that event-
related adverbs, in distinction to the other, especially higher
adverbs, are realized in their majority as NPs and PPs. As PPs, they
were prone to be placed in post verbal position by a peripheral rule in
the OE period. Due to converging factors the situation got fixed when
the post verbal order of these adverbs was reanalyzed as the result of
successive cyclic VP-intraposition.

22. EPP: Object Shift and Stylistic Fronting in Scandinavian, by Ken
Hiraiwa
One of the parametric differences between Icelandic and Mainland
Scandinavian languages (MSc), Da(nish), Nor(wegian) and Swe(dish)) is
the fact that Icelandic allows Object Shift(OS)of weak pronominals as
well as full DPs, but MSc allows only the former. That is, the question
is:
(1) Why is full DP OS illicit in MSc, but licit in Icelandic?
The author proposes an articulated theory of EPP, 'A Split EPP/Agree
Theory', and its parameterization in Scandinavian, and shows that this
provides a principled explanation for the apparent difference in OS
between Icelandic and MSc. Another parametric difference in Stylistic
Fronting (SF) in Scandinavian also reduces to the Split EPP/Agree
parameter. Elaborating the notion of EPP and Agree, the author proposes
the following:
(2) The Split EPP/Agree Parameter: Satisfaction of EPP on T is (not)
contingent on a syntactic operation Agree.
Under this theory, languages vary in whether EPP satisfaction is
contingent on Agree or not. Then the following parameterization follow:
(3) Split EPP/Agree Parameterization on T in Scandinavian
a. Icelandic: EPP is not contingent on the operation Agree
b MSc: EPP is contingent on the operation Agree.
(3) leads to the following feature constitution of T:
(4) Probe features on T in Icelandic and MSc
a. Icelandic: T[EPP, phiEPP]
b. MSc : T[phiEPP]

23. The Status of Voice in German, by Michael Jessen and Catherine
Ringen
The purpose of this paper is to present experimental results that bear
on the issue of whether German has underlying voiced stops or [spread
glottis]([sg]) stops. The voiced stops in German are different from the
voiced stops in languages like Spanish, Russian and Hungarian. In spite
of this, German is usually claimed to have stops that contrast in
voicing just like Russian, Spanish and Hungarian. The experimental data
that the authors present support an account of German stops that
involve an underlying feature of [sg]. These facts are difficult to
account for if the feature [voice] is assumed. To account for the data
they have assumed two constraints which refer to [sg] segments: one
which requires that obstruents in word final position be [sg] and
second which requires that obstruents in codas be [sg].

24. A (covert)Long Distance Anaphor in English, by Christopher Kennedy
and Jeffrey Lidz
The focus of this paper is the distribution of strict and sloppy
interpretations of reflexive pronouns in comparative stripping. The
paper argues that the distribution of strict/sloppy readings in English
comparative stripping constructions provides evidence for the existence
of long distance anaphor(LDA) in English which occurs only under
ellipsis. The long distance anaphor does not show up overtly, because
English does not have a morphological realization of the feature
combination corresponding to this object. The English LDA may appear in
ellipsis however, because it is precisely in ellipsis that
morphological instantiation is not required. This indicates that the
set of feature structures generated in the syntax may be distinct from
those that have corresponding vocabulary items: not every structure can
be morphologically realized. That means, in order to identify a
particular language's inventory of syntactic objects we must not only
look at contexts where we expect them to be pronounced, but also look
at contexts where they don't have to be.

25. On Prerelatives and Appositives, by Cornelia Krause
In this paper it is argued that there is a class of prerelatives --
prerelatives with genitive subjects -- that do not exhibit the
syntactic properties of appositives nor appositive interpretations even
when they modify proper names. Aside from a restrictive interpretation
prerelatives on proper names can receive interpretations that are
typical for Free Adjuncts. Prerelatives with nominative subjects
however, can be appositives. This difference between prerelatives with
genitive and nominative subjects can be derived from the fact that the
former but not the latter are reduced relatives. According to the Main
Clause Hypothesis, appositives must be full clauses. Prerelatives with
nominative subjects can be appositives. This is because they, unlike
prerelatives with genitive subjects are full clauses.

26. Wh- and Focus are Not the Same Projection, by Felicia Lee
Though Wh- and Focus movement have been argued to target the same
projection across a range of languages, this paper argues that contrary
to superficial appearances, wh- and Focus do not target the same
projection. Instead, they target separate interacting projections: an
interrogative projection IntP, which licenses interrogative elements,
and FocP, which licenses focussed constituents. The co-occurrence
restrictions involving focus and wh-movement are due to the semantics
of wh-words: most wh-expressions encode focus, as well as interrogative
features. Thus they pass through FocP before landing in IntP,
preventing other constituents from appearing in FocP.

27. A Way to Undo A-Movement, by Vivian Lin
In this paper it is argued that A-movement is not subject to Coordinate
Structure Constraint (CSC), since CSC does not exist as a constraint on
movement operations. However, given the revised understanding of what
CSC is -- A-movement is subject to CSC effects, which take the form of
forced reconstruction. Specifically, evaluation of component structures
requires reconstruction of independently A-moved subjects from surface
subject position (Spec T) back to their VP-internal positions -- unless
there is a resumptive pronoun in the second conjunct. The resumptive
pronoun licenses the appearance of the moved subject high in the clause
by allowing it to be incorporated into an operator-variable chain. The
author adopts a version of CSC given in Fox (2000). According to him
there is no independent Coordinate structure constraint. Instead CSC
effects are derived from:
(1) a. Extraction out of coordinate structure is possible only when
the structure consists of two [or more] independent
substructures, each composed of one of the coordinates
together with material above it up to the landing site
(component structures).
b. Grammatical constraints are checked independently in each of
the component structures. (Fox 2000: 50).

28. Intonation, Scope, and Restrictions on Quantifiers, by Luisa Martí
This paper highlights the importance of intonation in semantic
interpretation. It discusses the consequences of the interaction
between intonation and scope for the domain restriction of quantifiers.
The language of study is German. Consider (1) (English words for
German) -- the subordinate 'because' clause is focused ('pressure' is
the word that bears the actual stress).
(1) the half the students is failed [because the dean to me under
PRESSURE put has]F
'Half of the students failed because the dean put pressure on
me'.
Example (1) contains two scope bearing elements 'half of the students'
and the 'because clause'. Thus, we can have two readings:
(2) a. Half of the students have failed, and the reason for this is
that the dean put pressure on me.
b. For half of the students, they failed because the dean put
pressure on me to fail those particular students.
If (1) has a different intonation, scope possibilities change.
(3) [THE HALF]T the students is failed, [because the dean to me
under PRESSURE put has]F
The stress on the quantifier 'half' marks a contrastive Topic. Now, the
only available interpretation for (3) is where the subject takes scope
over the subordinate clause. It is assumed that quantifiers are
restricted by a contextually specified variable C. By default the
variable takes the value 'being relevant'. The author argues that there
are semantic and pragmatic reasons why the scope possibilities are more
limited for (3) than they are for (1). The analysis is couched in a
very modular view of grammar, where 'grammatical sentence' means that
the sentence is phonologically, syntactically, semantically and
pragmatically well formed.

29. AspP-Shell Structure in VP-Ellipsis and ACD, by Ayumi Matsuo
This paper argues that Antecedent Contained Deletion(ACD) is an
operation targeting an (outer) AspP rather than a VP; hence, ACDs
should not be treated as an instance of VP-deletion. ACDs have been
traditionally treated on a par with VP-ellipsis and pseudo-gapping.
However, the author provides evidence that ACDs are AspP-deletion
(copying). It is also claimed that ACDs have a large number of
properties in common with VP-fronting, which also target AspP. To
support the claim, differences between ACDs and VP-ellipsis/pseudo-
gapping w. r. t aspect parallelism are considered, and what kind of
adverbs and modals each construction can occur with. Whereas ACDs and
VP-fronting access part of an AspP, VP-ellipsis access something bigger
or smaller than AspP; namely TP, AuxP and VP.

30. Obligatory Scalarity (A Sliding Scale), by Ora Matushansky
Scalar predicates can be described as having domains that are partially
ordered according to some property that permits grading.
(1) Millay is large/beautiful
The predicate in (1) is vague in the sense that the degree to which the
subject of the predication is large or beautiful is established by the
context. This degree is an additional argument of such scalar
predicates. The degree variable slot can be filled by an overt measure
phrase, as in (2a), be restricted by a comparison class, as in (2b), or
can also be quantified over by a comparative operator as in (2c).
(2) a. Frank Sandow is 5 feet 10 inches tall.
b. Frank Sandow is tall for a man.
c. Frank Sandow is taller than Lady Karle.
The claim is that semantic scalarity (presence of a degree variable
slot) should be distinguished from its syntactic realization(projection
of a DegP), and that the latter comes into play as a selectional
restriction on the non-propositional complement of 'seem'. The
perception verb 'seem', unlike the epistemic modal 'seem', selects a
DegP complement. It is shown that semantic scalarity has to be extended
to non-adjectival predicates, such as evaluative nouns and PPs denoting
mental and emotional states, which also show similar syntactic and
semantic behaviour. Additional data involving degree modification can
be accounted for if the projection of DegPs is forced by degree
movement, which is attested in exclamatives, interrogatives,
topicalization, etc.

31. Quantitative Processes in Trochaic Systems, by Evan Mellander
The paper provides a unified account of a number of quantitative
processes in trochaic systems, as well as a number of asymmetries
between the manifestation of quantitative processes in trochaic and
iambic systems. The principle of Head Government (HD-GOV) accounts for
the basic foot inventory in (bounded) iambic and trochaic systems, the
restriction of trochaic (LL)-creating processes to moraic trochee
systems, and the non-attestation of parallel (LL) creating processes in
iambic systems. Contrary to recent analysis, the uneven(HL)trochee is
assumed to be a well formed phonological structure, and quantitative
processes creating such feet are seen as phonological in nature.
(1) Head Government (HD-GOV): Dependent elements within a foot must
be governed by an adjacent head.

32. A Union Function for Complex Coordinate Structures, by Michelle J.
Moosally and L. Kirk Hagen
Unification grammars lack the expressive power required to predict
agreement in natural languages when targets are complex and non-
isomorphic. Current theories of agreement are unable to provide a
coherent theory that handles agreement in both coordinate and non-
coordinate structures. This paper argues that theories that rely on
principles of feature unification fail to predict the range of possible
coordination patterns. The authors propose an alternative theory based
on the union of sets of feature values and show how union succeeds
where unification fails. This work, with a parser based framework,
yields an approach that relies on union of feature matrices; this
approach accurately predicts a wide array of complex agreement patterns
without compromising intuitions about constituency.

33. Interpreting Measure DP Adverbials, by Marcin Morzycki
This paper deals with weak DP adverbials, or 'measure DP adverbials' as
in (1):
(1) a. It had been raining an hour.
b. Clyde played the ukelele every day.
c. Floyd slept the wrong way again.
They are simultaneously DPs and adverbial modifiers; prototypical DPs
are not modifiers, and prototypical adverbials are not DPs. These
adverbials constitute a natural class distinguished not only by
quantificational strength, but also by scope restrictions, distribution
and an Aktionsart effect. It is shown that certain Aktionsart
information is encoded in a feature in verbal functional structure
responsible for licensing these adverbials. Independent evidence is
adduced from true adverbs. It is suggested that part of the semantic
contribution of a modifier is attributed instead to a fixed position in
functional structure. Many modifiers for example, change interpretation
with structural position in ways other than scope. Thus, the semantics
of measure DP adverbials arise in part directly from their position,
through the feature in functional structure that licenses them. This
feature imposes a homogeneity requirement, occupies a fixed low
position in the clause, and is implicated in interpretation of durative
adverbs as well.

34. Indefinites and Frozen Scope in Japanese: Restrictions on QR and
Choice Functions, by Kimiko Nakanishi
In English, the Direct Object(DO) cannot take scope over Indirect
Object(IO) in IO-DO order, whereas in DO-IO order, either object can
take scope over the other. Thus, in (1a), the scope is 'frozen', in
that only surface scope reading is available. But in (1b), there is no
scope-freezing effect.
(1) a. The teacher assigned one student every problem.
Scope freezing: IO > DO; *DO > IO
b. The teacher assigned one problem to every student
No scope freezing: IO > DO; DO > IO (Larson 1990)
It is claimed that frozen scope is due to the specificity of the
indefinite IO in IO-DO. This specificity is semantically encoded as a
choice function interpretation in a similar way as 'a certain NP' in
English. Why is the IO in IO-DO specific? The current proposal of the
author points toward the same direction as the previous studies of
pragmatics: the IO in IO-DO is 'non-dominant'(i.e. , generally
definite), 'more topicworthy' or 'the possessor of the DO', whereas the
IO in DO-IO does not necessarily satisfy these properties.

35. A Distinctness Condition on Linearization, by Norvin Richards
The author proposes a new well-formedness condition on the
linearization statements used by Kayne's (1995) LCA. The new
restriction on ordering statements will have the effect of making
multiple syntactic nodes with the same label impossible to linearize if
they are close together in the structure. This captures a number of
recalcitrant syntactic phenomena that conform to a general pattern of
avoidance of adjacent identical objects. This approach to LCA requires
that ordering statements make reference to node types rather than
particular tokens of syntactic objects, thereby limiting the class of
ordering statements which can actually be used to impose an ordering on
terminals.

36. Licensing and Feature Interaction Processes in Child Language, by
Yvan Rose
This paper explores two feature interaction processes, consonant
harmony and metathesis found in the outputs of Clara, a learner of
Québec French. It is argued that the patterns observed in Clara's data
are best captured in an analysis based on (a) highly articulated
prosodic representations and (b) licensing relationships taking place
between the place features and heads of prosodic constituents. It is
also shown that previous approaches to consonant harmony would have
difficulty accounting for Clara's data, because none of these
approaches make reference to prosodic domains. This approach draws a
formal distinction concerning the prosodification of non-final and
final consonants in French. Only reference to highly articulated
prosodic representations enables one to establish such a distinction
and predict its effects on licensing.

37. A contrast to A Trace, by Uli Sauerland
The following three structures have been proposed for a movement
operation like Quantifier Raising, in the recent literature.
(1) A girl danced with every boy
a. [every boy]x a girl danced with x (copy + replace)
b. [every boy]x a girl danced with [every boy](copy)
c. [every boy]x a girl danced with [the(x) boy](copy+modify).
Chomsky (1993) argues against the (copy + replace) theory in (1a) on
the basis of Condition C data that show that moved material can behave
as if it occupies the base position of movement. (1b) has its own
problems of interpretation. This paper argues in favour of (1c),
proposed by Chomsky (1993) and Fox (1999). That is, copying is followed
by a trace modification operation that replaces the determiner of the
moved DP with something else. The author assumes that this is an
indexed definite determiner. The prediction of this analysis is that,
under certain circumstances, a second occurrence of the moving
quantifier could be contrasted with the trace of QR receiving narrow
Focus on the determiner. e.g. ,
(2) [every boy]x . . the(x) boy . . [EVERY]F boy
It is argued that the plain copy theory does not have a conceptual
advantage when the interpretive system is considered. On the other
hand, (copy + modify) theory involves minimal change required for the
LF structures to be interpretable, and is better than copy+replace
theory.

38. Subquestions and Quantificational Variability Effects, by Yael
Sharvit and Sigrid Beck
In the following, (1a-c), have a Quantificational Variability (QV)
reading, where the adverb ('for the most part', 'partly', 'with few
exceptions' etc. ,) quantifies over an answer to the interrogative
complement of the main verb:
(1) a. For the most part, John knows who cheated.
'For most x that cheated, John knows that x cheated'.
b. John partly remembers who cheated.
c. With few exceptions, John found out who cheated.
The proposal is that in a QV structure, the adverb quantifies over
semantic questions (Hamblin-intensions -- functions from possible
worlds to sets of possible answers; Hamblin (1973). All question taking
verbs may trigger QV effects. The questions quantified over need not
correspond to members of the original Hamblin-extension.

39. The End OF CED?, by Arthur Stepanov
It is well known that in English and many other languages wh-extraction
out of subjects and structural adjuncts is impossible, in contrast to
extraction out of objects. This work puts the complement/non-complement
distinction under closer scrutiny. It is shown that abandoning the
distinction is empirically desirable. Abandoning the distinction leads
to an 'eclectic' approach in which extractability out of subjects and
adjuncts is regulated by different mechanisms of grammar in a non-
overlapping manner. The 'eclectic' approach finds independent empirical
support.

40. What Can Child Japanese Tell Us About the Syntax of Scrambling?, by
Koji Sugisaki and Miwa Isobe
The study is an attempt to determine the validity of two competing
syntactic analysis of the Direct Object(DO) -- Indirect Object(IO)
order within the VP in Japanese, based on data from child language
acquisition. One analysis suggests that this order is derived from the
IO-DO order via application of movement operation called scrambling.
The other analysis claims that both orders can be base generated. It is
shown that under certain acquisitional assumptions, these two analysis
make different predictions for child Japanese, and that experimental
bear out the predictions of the movement analysis.

41. Information Structure and Disambiguation in Japanese, by Satoshi
Tomioka
This paper argues that the interpretations of the Japanese existential
construction are intimately influenced by information structure. The
semantic impact of word order differences gives an impression that the
disambiguation is a result of a syntactic constraint, but that
impression is misleading. When Focus, topic marking and embedded
sentences are taken into consideration, it becomes clear that a
syntactic approach cannot provide a coherent explanation. The pragmatic
approach advocated in this paper succeeds in deriving the facts a
syntactic approach fails to account for.

42. Between Mass and Count, by Lucia M. Tovena
The present paper discusses a case where mass nouns appear to go
together with singular count nouns rather than plural ones. A subset of
mass nouns, identified as intensive quantifiers (IQs), can pair with
singular count nouns rather than plural ones and the rest of mass nouns
in certain quantificational contexts. It is assumed that the structure
of the domain of countable nouns contains atoms, and mass nouns denote
continuous entities. The author adds to this a is a third type of
domain/level, made of weakly discrete units. It is argued that the
domain of IQs contains weakly discrete units, in the sense that they
can be quantified over in particular contexts. Weakly discrete units in
IQs are understood as degrees. Thus finer grained classification of
mass nouns allows us the possibility of predicting systematic different
grammatical statuses for given det+N combinations.

43. A Neo-Lexicalist Movement Analysis of Incorporation, by Takashi
Toyoshima
In this paper, the author scrutinizes Baker's (1996) refined analysis
of the theory of incorporation, and proposes an alternative analysis in
which incorporated words are formed by a pre-syntactic morpholexical
process, and licensed in syntax by phrasal movement of 'pro'. The
'lexicalist' insight into 'classifier' incorporation, coupled with
Sportiche's (1996) hybrid analysis of clitic placement can give a
better account of Baker's (1996) new evidence. With inflection already
being a morphological process in the minimalist framework, this seems
to leave no empirical necessity for head-to-head adjunction. This neo-
lexicalist movement analysis of incorporation contributes to the
pursuit of the 'perfect' system of syntactic computation, by dispensing
with unnecessary head-to-head adjunction.

44. The Syntax of Transitivity and Its Effects: Evidence from
Halkomelem Salish, by Martina Wiltschko
This paper shows that in Halkomelem, unergative verbs are not concealed
transitives, and that there is no syntactic distinction between
unergative and unaccusative verbs: This is derived from the
morphosyntax of transitivity. In Halkomelem, the projection of vP is
dependent on the presence of the transitive marker and therefore
unergative predicates are not to be analysed as concealed transitives.
The cross-linguistic difference between English-type languages and
Halkomelem provides evidence that unergatives are not universally
concealed transitives (Chomsky 1995). Cross linguistic differences in
morphosyntactic structure correlate with cross linguistic differences
in the projection of arguments. This crucially supports Borer's (1994)
syntactic predicate driven approach to argument projection.

45. Measure Phrase Modification in Vector Space Semantics, by Yoad
Winter
Spatial and temporal measure phrases (MPs) such as ten meters, five
years etc. , appear with various linguistic items, including locative
prepositions, adjectives and comparatives. Three main facts about MP
modifications are observed.
(i) Some locative prepositions and degree adjectives allow MP
modification while others do not.
(ii) When an adjective allows MP modification, it loses the 'value
judgement' part of it's meaning.
(iii) In their comparative form, both positive and negative
adjectives allow MP modifications.
To account for such facts, this paper generalizes the modification
condition of (Zwarts 1997) and (Zwarts & Winter 2000), which handles MP
modification of locatives in Vector Space Semantics (VSS). The extended
principle also governs the acceptability of Measure Phrase modification
with absolute and comparative adjectives.

46. An Argument for Category Neutrality?, by Rachel Wojdak
The author shows that Nuu-chah-nulth is not a syntactically category
neutral language. It has been demonstrated that there is a syntactic
evidence for [+/-N] distinction which coincides with the morphological
[+/-N] contrast previously known to exist in Nuu-chah-nulth. The author
argues that the language allows nominals and non-nominals alike to
serve as the base of an argument construction, which is derived
syntactically via a determiner. Such an analysis challenges the notion
that nominals differ universally from non-nominals in their ability to
function as arguments. The underlying contrast between lexical
categories in Nuu-chah-nulth is reflected in category dependent
restrictions on modification.

47. Agree: The Other VP-Internal Subject Hypothesis, by Susi Wurmbrand
The paper provides empirical evidence for the notion of AGREE (Chomsky
1998, 2000) -- i.e. , an abstract feature matching relation between a
functional head and a 'goal' in-situ. This is in contrast to the MOVE
approach, whereby Case and Agreement features are checked in Specifier-
head configuration. The argument is based on German topicalization
constructions in which the subject (i.e. ,a nominative XP agreeing with
the finite verb) is in a position lower than its case/agreement
position (i.e. , Spec TP) at PF, and importantly, is trapped in this
position at LF. Since in these contexts, movement to the specifier
position of the licensing head cannot occur (neither overtly nor
covertly),the grammaticality of these constructions suggests that Case
and agreement licensing does not require a specifier-head
configuration, which is compatible with the AGREE approach to feature
licensing, but incompatible with the MOVE approach.

48. On Distributional Differences Between Universal and Existential
Quantifiers, by Kazuko Yatsushiro
It is argued that the distribution of the universal particle 'mo' and
the existential particle 'ka' in Japanese is explained by the semantics
of these particles. Japanese universal and existential quantifiers
consist of two parts: Indeterminate pronouns and quantificational
particles and suffixes. The author adopts and further justifies the P-
set analysis of 'mo-construction' proposed by Shimoyama (1999). The P-
set analysis proposes that 'mo' universally quantifies over the P-set
(Rooth 1985) of the sister constituent of 'mo'. It is also claimed that
there is no covert movement or type shifting in Japanese.

EVALUATION
I can only give a general evaluation of the book, since, in a review of
the sort presented here, it is impossible to evaluate each of the
forty-eight papers separately. The papers cover a wide range of topics
in syntax, semantics, morphology, and phonology. The data is drawn from
many known, as well as lesser known languages, thus providing the
reader an extensive scope for comparison. For example, personally, I
found that many of the phenomena I thought occurred only in the
languages I am working on, found support in the data presented in this
book. The papers are well written, and just the sheer variety is a
treat for any serious student of linguistics.

REFERENCES
Baker, Mark (1996) The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford University
Press.
Baker, Mark (1997) Thematic Roles and Syntactic Structure. In L.
Haegeman, ed., Elements of Grammar, Kluwer, 73-137.
Borer, Hagit (1994) On the Projection of Arguments. In: E. Bendicto
and J. Runner, eds., 'Functional Projections'. University of
Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics. 17. 19-48.
Chomsky, Noam (1977) 'On Wh-movement'. In P. Culicover, T. Wasow
and A. Akmaijan, eds, Formal Syntax, Academic Press, 157- 205.
Chomsky, Noam (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris.
Chomsky, Noam (1993) 'A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory'. In K.
Hale and S. J. Keyser, eds., The View from Building 20, Essays in
Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam (1995) The Minimalist Program, MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam (1998) Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. MIT
Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15.
Chomsky, Noam (2000) 'Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework'. In R. Martin,
D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka, eds., Step by Step: Essays on
Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, MIT Press, 89-155.
Cinque, Guglielmo (1999) Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-
Linguistic Perspective, Oxford.
Fox, Danny (1999) 'Reconstruction, Variable Binding and the
Interpretation of Chains'. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 157-196.
Fox, Danny (2000) Economy and Semantic Interpretation, MIT Press.
Hale, Ken and Samuel J. Keyser (1993)'On Argument Structure and the
Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations'. In K. Hale and S. J.
Keyser, eds. The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor
of Sylvain Bromberger, MIT Press.
Hamblin, C. L. (1973) 'Questions and Montague English'. Foundations of
Language 10:41-53.
Kayne, Richard (1995) The Antisymmetry of Syntax, MIT Press.
Kayne, Richard (2000) 'How Movement, Binding and Agreement are
Related'. Talk given at WCCFL 19.
Larson, Richard (1990) 'Double Objects Revised: Reply to Jackendoff'.
Linguistic Inquiry 21: 589-632.
McCarthy, John and Alan Prince (1995) 'Faithfulness and Reduplicative
Identity'. In: University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in
Linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality Theory, J. Beckman, L.
Walsh Dickey and S. Urbanczyk, eds., 249-384.
Reinhart, Tanya and Eric Reuland (1993) 'Reflexivity'. Linguistic
Inquiry 24. 657-720.
Rizzi, Luigi (1990) 'On the Anaphor Agreement Effect'. Rivista di
Linguistica 2: 27-42.
Rooth, Mats (1985) Association with Focus. PhD Dissertation, University
of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Sag, Ivan and Thomas Wasow (1999) Syntactic Theory: A Formal
Introduction, CSLI Publications.
Shimoyama, Junko (1999) 'Complex NPs and Wh-Quantification in
Japanese'. Proceedings of NELS 29, 355-365.
Sportiche, Dominique (1996) 'Clitic Constructions'. 213-276. In J.
Rooryck and L. Zaring, eds, Phrase Structure and the Lexicon,
Kluwer.
Wasow, Thomas (1977) 'Transformations and the Lexicon'. In: P.
Culicover, T. Wasow, and A. Akmaijan (eds). Formal Syntax, Academic
Press, 327-360.
Woolford, Ellen (1999) 'More on the Anaphor Agreement Effect'.
Linguistic Inquiry. 30: 257-287.
Zwarts, Joost (1997) 'Vectors as Relative Positions: A Compositional
Semantics of Modified PPs'. Journal of Semantics, 14: 57-86.
Zwarts, Joost and Yoad Winter (2000)'Vector Space Semantics: A Model-
Theoretic Analysis of Locative Prepositions'. Journal of Logic,
Language and Information, 9: 169-211.




 
ABOUT THE REVIEWER:
ABOUT THE REVIEWER Sharbani's research interests include Morphology, Minimalist Syntax, Semantics, and their application in Computational Linguistics.

Amazon Store: