View Item 

Show simple item record

The Derivation of Clausal Gerunds
dc.contributor.authorPires, Acrisioen_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-06-01T21:11:26Z
dc.date.available2010-06-01T21:11:26Z
dc.date.issued2007-08en_US
dc.identifier.citationPires, Acrisio (2007). "The Derivation of Clausal Gerunds." Syntax 10(2): 165-203. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/74271>en_US
dc.identifier.issn1368-0005en_US
dc.identifier.issn1467-9612en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/74271
dc.format.extent904203 bytes
dc.format.extent3109 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Ltden_US
dc.rights2007 The Author Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltden_US
dc.titleThe Derivation of Clausal Gerundsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelLinguisticsen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHumanitiesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumAcrisio Pires University of Michigan Department of Linguistics 458 Lorch Hall, 611 Tappan St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1220 USA pires@umich.eduen_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/74271/1/j.1467-9612.2007.00100.x.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1467-9612.2007.00100.xen_US
dc.identifier.sourceSyntaxen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceABNEY, S. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Ph. D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAOUN, J., L. CHOUEIRI & N. HORNSTEIN. 2001. Resumption, movement, and derivational economy. Linguistic Inquiry 32 ( 3 ): 371 – 403.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBARRIE, M. 2004. Moving towards partial control. In Proceedings of NELS 34, ed. K. Moulton & M. Wolf, 133 – 146. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBOECKX, C. & N. HORNSTEIN. 2004. Movement under control. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 431 – 452.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBELLETI, A. 1990. Generalized verb movement. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBOŠKOVIć, Ž. 1994. D-structure, theta criterion, and movement into theta positions. Linguistic Analysis 24: 247 – 286.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBOŠKOVIć, Ž. 1997. The syntax of nonfinite complementation: An economy approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBOŠKOVIć, Ž. 2002. A-movement and the EPP. Syntax 5: 167 – 218.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBOŠKOVIć, Ž. & D. TAKAHASHI. 1998. Scrambling and last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 347 – 366.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCASTILLO, J. C., J. DRURY & K. K. GROHMANN. 1999. Merge over move and the extended projection principle. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 66 – 103.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCHOMSKY, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Readings in English transformational grammar, ed. R. Jacobs & P. Rosenbaum, 184 – 221. Needham, MA: Ginn Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCHOMSKY, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCHOMSKY, N. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. London: Praeger.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCHOMSKY, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCHOMSKY, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCHOMSKY, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. M. Kenstowicz, 1 – 52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCHOMSKY, N. & H. LASNIK. 1993. The theory of principles and parameters. In Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld & T. Vannemann, 506 – 569. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. [Reprinted in N. Chomsky. 1995. The Minimalist Program, 13 – 127. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.]en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCULICOVER, P. W. & R. JACKENDOFF. 2001. Control is not movement. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 493 – 512.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDAVIES, W. D. & S. DUBINSKY. 2004. The grammar of raising and control: A course in syntactic argumentation. Oxford: Blackwell.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceENÇ, M. 1990. On the absence of the present tense morpheme in English. Ms., University of Wisconsin, Madison.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEPSTEIN, S. D., E. GROAT, R. KAWASHIMA & H. KITAHARA. 1998. A derivational approach to syntactic relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEPSTEIN, S. D., A. PIRES & T. D. SEELY. 2005. EPP in T: More controversial subjects. Syntax 8: 165 – 180.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEPSTEIN, S. D. & T. D. SEELY. 1999. SPEC-ifying the GF “subject”: Eliminating A-chains and the EPP within a derivational model. Ms., University of Michigan and Eastern Michigan University.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEPSTEIN, S. D. & T. D. SEELY. 2006. Derivations in minimalism: Exploring the elimination of A-chains and the EPP. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFODOR, J. 1975. The language of thought. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGEORGE, L. & J. KORNFILT. 1981. Finiteness and boundedness in Turkish. In Binding and filtering, ed. F. Heny, 105 – 127. London: Croom Helm.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGRIMSHAW, J. 2000. Locality and extended projection. In Lexical specification and insertion, ed. P. Coopmans, M. Everaert, J. Grimshaw, 115 – 134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHIGGINBOTHAM, J. 1992. Reference and control. In Control and grammar, ed. R. Larson, S. Iatridou, U. Lahiri & J. Higginbotham. Dordrecht: Kluwer.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHORN, L. 1975. On the nonsentential nature of the POSS-ING construction. Linguistic Analysis 1 ( 4 ): 333 – 387.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHORNSTEIN, N. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69 – 96.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHORNSTEIN, N. 2001. Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford: Blackwell.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJACKENDOFF, R. & P. W. CULICOVER. 2003. The semantic basis of control in English. Language 79: 517 – 556.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJOHNSON, K. 1988. Clausal gerunds, the ECP, and government. Linguistic Inquiry 19 ( 4 ): 583 – 609.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKAISER, L. 1999. The morphosyntax of clausal nominalization constructions. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, CT.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKAPETANGIANNI, K. & T. D. SEELY. 2003. Subjunctives in Modern Greek: Explanation by deduction; agreement by degrees. Paper presented at NASC 1-North American Syntax Conference, Concordia University, Montreal.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKAYNE, R. 1981. ECP extensions. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 93 – 133.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKIGUCHI, H. 2002. PRO gate and movement. Ms., University of Maryland, College Park.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLANDAU, I. 2003. Movement out of control. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 471 – 498.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLANDAU, I. 2004. The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22: 811 – 877.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLASNIK, H. 1995. Last resort and attract F. In Proceedings of FLSM 6, ed. L. Gabriele, D. Hardison & R. Westmoreland, 62 – 81. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLASNIK, H. 1999. Minimalist analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLASNIK, H. 2001a. A note on the EPP. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 356 – 361.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLASNIK, H. 2001b. Subjects, objects, and the EPP. In Objects and other subjects, ed. W. Davies & S. Dubinsky, 103 – 122. Dordrecht: Kluwer.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLEBEAUX, D. 1985. Locality and anaphoric binding. The Linguistic Review 4: 343 – 363.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMANZINI, M. R. & A. ROUSSOU. 2000. A minimalist theory of A-movement and control. Lingua 110: 409 – 447.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMARTIN, R. 1996. A minimalist theory of PRO and control. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMARTIN, R. 1999. Case, the extended projection principle, and minimalism. In Working minimalism, ed. S. D. Epstein & N. Hornstein, 1 – 26. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMARTIN, R. 2001. Null case and the distribution of PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 32 ( 1 ): 141 – 166.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMILSARK, G. L. 1988. Singl- ing. Linguistic Inquiry 19 ( 4 ): 611 – 634.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMONAHAN, P. 2003. Backward object control in Korean. Proceedings of WCCFL 22: 101 – 114.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceO'NEIL, J. 1995. Out of control. Proceedings of NELS 25: 361 – 371. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePESETSKY, D. & E. TORREGO. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. M. Kenstowicz, 355 – 426. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePIRES, A. 1999. A minimalist approach to clausal gerunds. Ms., University of Maryland, College Park.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePIRES, A. 2001a. The syntax of gerunds and infinitives: Subjects, Case, and control. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePIRES, A. 2001b. Clausal and TP–defective gerunds: Control without tense. Proceedings of NELS 31: 389 – 406. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePIRES, A. 2006. The minimalist syntax of defective domains: Gerunds and infinitives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePIRES, A. & C. RODRIGUES. 2002. Null subjects of non-finite adjuncts: A case of remnant movement. Paper presented at the 76th annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Francisco.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePOLINSKY, M. & E. POTSDAM. 2002. Backward control. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 245 – 282.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceREULAND, E. 1983. Governing - ing. Linguistic Inquiry 14 ( 1 ): 101 – 136.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceREULAND, E. & S. AVRUTIN. 2005. Binding and beyond: Issues in backward anaphora. In Anaphora processing: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational modelling, ed. A. Branco, T. Mcenery & R. Mitkov, 139 – 162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRODRIGUES, C. 2004. Impoverished morphology and A-movement out of case domains. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceROUVERET, A. 1979. Sur la notion de proposition finie. Langages 60 : 75 – 107.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSAFIR, K. 2004a. The syntax of (in)dependence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSAFIR, K. 2004b. The syntax of anaphora. Oxford: Oxford University Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSAN MARTIN, I. 2004. On subordination and the distribution of PRO. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSCHUELER, D. 2004. Extended-projection, categorization and the English morpheme - ing. Paper presented at WECOL 2004.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSCHÜTZE, C. 2001. On the nature of default case. Syntax 4: 205 – 238.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSTOWELL, T. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSTOWELL, T. 1982. The tense of infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 561 – 570.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceURIAGEREKA, J. 1995. Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26 ( 1 ): 79 – 123.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWILLIAMS, E. 1975. Small clauses in English. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 4, ed. J. Kimball, 249 – 273. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZUBIZARRETA, M. L. 1980. Remarks on inflected infinitives in Portuguese. Ms., MIT, Cambridge, MA.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
j.1467-9612.2007.00100.x.pdf
Size:
883.0KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.