24.2929, Review: Linguistic Theories; Syntax; Typology: Song (2012)

[linguist at linguistlist.org]

LINGUIST List: Vol-24-2929. Thu Jul 18 2013. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 24.2929, Review: Linguistic Theories; Syntax; Typology: Song (2012)

Moderator: Damir Cavar, Eastern Michigan U <damir at linguistlist.org>

Reviews: Veronika Drake, U of Wisconsin Madison
Monica Macaulay, U of Wisconsin Madison
Rajiv Rao, U of Wisconsin Madison
Joseph Salmons, U of Wisconsin Madison
Mateja Schuck, U of Wisconsin Madison
Anja Wanner, U of Wisconsin Madison
       <reviews at linguistlist.org>

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Do you want to donate to LINGUIST without spending an extra penny? Bookmark
the Amazon link for your country below; then use it whenever you buy from
Amazon!

USA: http://www.amazon.com/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-20
Britain: http://www.amazon.co.uk/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-21
Germany: http://www.amazon.de/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistd-21
Japan: http://www.amazon.co.jp/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-22
Canada: http://www.amazon.ca/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistc-20
France: http://www.amazon.fr/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistf-21

For more information on the LINGUIST Amazon store please visit our
FAQ at http://linguistlist.org/amazon-faq.cfm.

Editor for this issue: Rajiv Rao <rajiv at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.linguistlist.org/
					
					

Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 13:09:30
From: Matthew Reeve [m.reeve at ucl.ac.uk]
Subject: Word Order

E-mail this message to a friend:
http://linguistlist.org/issues/emailmessage/verification.cfm?iss=24-2929.html&submissionid=15391408&topicid=9&msgnumber=1
 
Discuss this message: 
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=15391408


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/23/23-2374.html

AUTHOR: Jae Jung  Song
TITLE: Word Order
SERIES TITLE: Research Surveys in Linguistics
PUBLISHER: Cambridge University Press
YEAR: 2012

REVIEWER: Matthew Reeve, University College London

SUMMARY

One of the major concerns of any approach to linguistics is to account for
cross-linguistic variation in word order. It has long been known that there
are statistical correlations between the unmarked orders of certain
grammatical categories (e.g. verb and object, adposition and its complement).
Yet there are vast differences between and within theoretical frameworks in
how they account for these correlations. Jae Jung Song’s book aims at
providing a relatively concise and accessible survey of how word order
variation is treated in four major frameworks -- linguistic typology,
generative grammar, optimality theory (treated separately from generative
grammar) and performance-based theories -- as well as a critical evaluation of
the various approaches. I summarize the contents of the seven chapters below,
and finally, provide a brief evaluation of the book.

Chapter 1: Word order: setting the scene
Song starts by considering the apparently banal fact that in English, a verb
precedes its direct object, whereas Korean shows the opposite order. The
question arises of whether this kind of word order variation is accidental or
whether there are patterns underlying such variation. Song notes that since
Behaghel’s (1909) classic work, a number of very different approaches to word
order variation have emerged, and practitioners of a given approach are often
unfamiliar with other approaches. Song’s aim in this book is to bridge the gap
between these various approaches. He argues that within generative grammar,
word order has been considered of lesser importance than other aspects of
grammar, often being considered merely a matter of phonology. In the
‘linguistic typology’ (LT) tradition, on the other hand, word order takes
centre stage, and word orders are important “in their own right” (p. 4). He
claims that Optimality Theory (OT) pays more attention to surface properties
than what we might call ‘standard’ generative grammar. The central difference
between the various approaches, Song claims, has to do with “empirical
validity” versus “theoretical explanation” (p. 5). LT is “unequalled” in terms
of emphasis on “empirically (or statistically) tested word-order variation”
(p. 5). OT and processing-based theories “draw heavily” on data from the LT
tradition (the implication being that generative grammar, in general, does
not).

Chapter 2: The Linguistic-Typological Approach: Empirical validity and
explanation
Song defines LT as “the study of structural variation in human language with a
view to establishing limits on this variation and seeking explanations for the
limits” (p. 10). While this definition seems to be applicable to any approach
to word order variation in terms of structure, Song emphasizes that accounting
for variation is the priority of the LT approach, and that, according to LT,
cross-linguistic data provide the best basis for generalizations about the
nature of human language. This approach is also characterized by a lack of
abstract entities and structures, and by an emphasis on ‘functional’ as
opposed to ‘formal’ variables. Yet LT practitioners are often also concerned
with theoretical elegance, and there have been various attempts to come up
with single, simple principles that can account for certain types of word
order variation. LT’s object of study is ‘language universals’ in the sense of
Greenberg (1963): statistical correlations between different word order
properties of a language. The methodology of LT involves large amounts of
data, which is claimed to lessen the risk of treating rare things as
universals. Song discusses the problem of determining the ‘basic word order’
of a language, and the fundamental importance given to the ordering of subject
(S), verb (V) and object (O) as opposed to other orderings, and then goes on
to discuss a number of competing LT approaches to word order variation. He
begins with the classic work of Greenberg (1963), whose 45 universals have
provided the basis for most typological work ever since, and then discusses
the work of W. Lehmann (e.g. 1973), Vennemann (e.g. 1974), Hawkins (1983,
1994, 2004), Tomlin (1986) and Dryer (1992), among others. These authors
differ on the question of which grammatical categories are the most reliable
indicators of other word order properties (e.g. V for Lehmann 1973 and
Vennemann 1974, P for Hawkins 1983), the importance of pragmatic/functional
factors vs. formal/structural factors (e.g. Tomlin’s 1986 Theme First,
Animated First and Verb-Object Bonding principles vs. the Head-Dependent
Theory exemplified by Vennemann 1974 and Hawkins 1983 and Dryer’s 1992
Branching Direction Theory) and the relation between verb-initial, verb-final
and verb-medial orders (e.g. Is SVO typologically closer to VSO or to SOV?).
Also relevant is the question of whether there is a single principle
underlying word order correlations (e.g. Hawkins’ 1983 Principle of
Cross-Category Harmony or Dryer’s 1992 Branching Direction Theory), or whether
we need to recognize heterogeneous factors (e.g. processing efficiency,
pragmatics/discourse, grammaticalization) as being responsible for them (e.g.
Dryer 2009).
 
Chapter 3: Entr’acte: historical and conceptual background of Generative
Grammar
This chapter sets the scene for Chapter 4, providing background in generative
grammar for readers who are unfamiliar with it. For space reasons, I will omit
further discussion of this chapter.

Chapter 4: The generative approach: stipulation or deduction
This chapter discusses how word order generalizations are accounted for within
what I will refer to as ‘mainstream generative grammar’ (MGG; a term borrowed
from Culicover & Jackendoff 2005). Song claims that, while word order has
always been central within LT, the status of word order within MGG has often
been thought to be “at best, ambiguous, and, at worst, insignificant, if not
totally irrelevant” (p. 100). He cites Chomsky’s discussion of
structure-dependence and the impossibility of formulating transformations
purely on the basis of linear order (e.g. in yes-no questions) as a case where
surface word order takes a back seat to more abstract structural properties.
On the other hand, while much work in the Minimalist Program (MP) work has
relegated word order to the Phonetic Form (PF) interface (i.e. phonology),
syntax proper being concerned only with hierarchy (e.g. Chomsky 2004), another
important strand of recent MGG work (starting with Kayne 1994), has taken word
order to be fully determined by hierarchical structure. This discussion thus
illustrates attempts to “move from stipulation to deduction” (p. 103). In
Section 4.2, Song illustrates in more detail the treatment of word order at
various stages of MGG: the stipulation of word order in phrase structure rules
(e.g. Chomsky 1965); the attempt to remove redundancy and capture headedness,
as well as the relatedness of verbs and derived nominals, in terms of X-bar
theory (e.g. Chomsky 1970); later refinements of X-bar theory, such as the
postulation of the Inflectional Phrase (IP) and the Determiner Phrase (DP)
(e.g. Abney 1987) and the VP-internal subject hypothesis (e.g., Koopman &
Sportiche 1991); the attempt to generalize over word order properties in terms
of the Head Parameter (e.g., Stowell 1981); and the use of Case Theory and
Theta Theory to account for certain VP-internal word order properties (e.g.
Chomsky 1981, Stowell 1981, Travis 1984). As Song notes, subsequent MGG
research on word order attempted to eliminate word order stipulations from
grammar to a greater extent; he devotes the remainder of the chapter to
Kayne’s (1994) proposal (in terms of the Linear Correspondence Axiom, or LCA)
that linearization is determined entirely by properties of hierarchical
structure (viz. asymmetric c-command). Song presents Kayne’s theory in some
detail, as well as a number of his arguments for it, and then moves on to
discuss how cross-linguistic word order variation has been accounted for
within LCA-based approaches: in short, word orders differing from the
underlying base order are derived via movement. Song discusses Cinque’s (2005)
account of Greenberg’s Universal 20 in terms of the LCA, as well as Kayne’s
(2000) account of the apparent fact that final complementizers are found only
in OV languages, and the correlation between postpositions and OV order. In
Section 4.5, Song discusses the relation between the LCA and MP, noting that
“Kayne’s theory has met with mixed reactions from MP practitioners” (p. 141).
He discusses Chomsky’s ‘bare phrase structure’, Uriagereka’s (1999) ‘multiple
spell-out’ system, and Epstein et al.’s (1998) attempt to derive c-command
directly from Merge and Hornstein’s (2009) proposal that Merge is an
asymmetric operation, all of which have implications for the LCA. The chapter
ends with a discussion of the increasing importance of ‘interface conditions’
in generative grammar.

Chapter 5: The Optimality-Theoretic approach: violable constraints and
constraint ranking
Song chooses to treat OT in a distinct chapter from generative grammar,
despite its origin within the generative paradigm. According to Song, OT
represents a “radical conceptual shift” (p. 160) from MGG in its use of
violable constraints. Furthermore, it does not constitute “a substantive
theory of any phenomenon” (Legendre 2001:3); rather, the constraints and
representations are “extensively imported directly from other theoretical
models” (p. 160) – as Song notes, these could, in principle, involve
functional factors, as well as the more ‘formal’ ones characteristic of MGG.
What distinguishes OT from other frameworks is the ranking of these
constraints in language-specific ways and the fact that they may be violated
in principle. Song begins by discussing the move from rule-based, derivational
theories of phonology to theories making use of constraints on representations
to avoid redundancy; OT represents the culmination of this process in that it
eliminates rules entirely in favour of constraints. Song then introduces the
basic architecture of OT (i.e. the GEN and EVAL components, the interaction of
violable constraints in language-specific ways, faithfulness and markedness
constraints, harmonic bounding, the emergence of the unmarked, and factorial
typology) and discusses how OT has been extended from phonology to syntax
(giving a particularly detailed discussion of Grimshaw’s 1997 treatment of
wh-movement, subject-aux inversion and do-support). A crucial aspect of OT
that emerges from this discussion is that it shifts explanations of language
variation from the lexicon (where it is generally located in modern MGG) to
the grammar (i.e. constraint ranking). Most of the rest of the chapter
discusses three OT accounts in detail: two accounts of word order in terms of
‘factorial typology’ – Costa (e.g. 1998) and Zepter (2003) – and López’s
(2009) attempt to interpret Kayne’s LCA in OT terms. Costa’s main concern is
the interaction of information structure with ‘basic word order’. Zepter aims
at capturing various basic orders (S, V, O; Gen, N) in terms of head
directionality constraints, as well as the orders that can be ruled out as
impossible (e.g. ‘reverse German’, TSVO). López (2009) argues that the LCA
should be reanalysed as a violable constraint in the sense of OT, basing his
argument on Clitic Right-Dislocation in Spanish. Song highlights the important
role played in all three cases by ‘the emergence of the unmarked’ (i.e. the
idea that lower-ranked constraints are decisive when the effects of all
higher-ranked constraints are neutralized).

Chapter 6: The performance-based approach: efficiency in processing (and
production)
This chapter focuses on “performance-based research that addresses, from a
cross-linguistic perspective, the word-order patterns and their correlations
by drawing on processing and/or production (efficiency) as the primary avenue
of explanation” (p. 235). The main approaches considered are Hawkins’ (1994,
2004) Early Immediate Constituent (EIC) Theory, the ‘speaker-oriented’ work of
Wasow (e.g. 2002) and associates, and Gibson’s (1998) Dependency Locality
Theory. He first discusses Hawkins’ treatment of word order within the English
VP in terms of the Principle of Early Immediate Constituents (PEIC): immediate
constituents must be identified as early as possible. He then discusses
various predictions and problems of Hawkins’ theory, concerning correlations
between P-NP, A-NP and Gen-NP, and left-right asymmetries in word order (e.g.
lack of final complementizers in VO languages, N-Rel order relative to verb
position). He compares Hawkins’ EIC Theory with Dryer’s Branching Direction
Theory (discussed under LT), concluding that EIC theory has advantages with
respect to the frequencies of word orders within complex NPs. Song then
considers theories grounded in the idea that the role of the speaker may have
a bearing on word/constituent ordering (in contrast to Hawkins’ ‘hearer-based’
approach). Wasow (2002) highlights the frequency of PEIC violations (e.g. with
Heavy Noun Phrase Shift (HNPS)) and dysfluencies in speech, proposing that the
speaker aims at maximizing production efficiency rather than processing
efficiency. Song then considers the role of length, heaviness and complexity,
all of which have been proposed as motivations for phenomena such as HNPS, and
Wasow’s conclusion that they are “statistically indistinguishable in corpus
data as predictors” (2002:32), which is contrasted with Hawkins’ position that
structural complexity is the “ultimate explanation” for word/constituent
ordering. In addition to these factors, Wasow and associates show that
‘information status’ (esp. given/new) is a crucial factor in ordering, at
least when structural complexity is not as relevant. Song next discusses three
additional variables that have been identified as possible determinants of
word/constituent ordering: semantic dependency (e.g. in collocations,
complements vs. adjuncts), lexical bias and valency. Song next discusses
Hawkins’ (2004) revision of his EIC theory, which (in contrast to his earlier
single-principle-based theory) appeals to multiple performance-based
principles (though still retaining processing efficiency as the central
principle), and extends its remit to non-word-order phenomena such as
relativization strategies, filler-gap dependencies, head- vs.
dependent-marking and antecedent-anaphor relations. Finally, Song discusses
Gibson’s Dependency Locality Theory (DLT), which is grounded in
psycholinguistics. DLT gives more of a role to factors such as the
complement/adjunct distinction, as part of an overall focus on “storage” or
“memory cost”. Two aspects of memory cost are relevant: storage of the
structure built so far, and integration of new words into this structure. Song
provides the example of ‘centre-embedding’ of relative clauses to illustrate
the workings of DLT. In his conclusion, Song notes the tension that exists in
performance-based theories between single-principle-based and
multiple-principles-based approaches, and between the roles of comprehension
and production. Further issues include the relevance of grammatical knowledge
(e.g. subcategorization requirements) and whether the processor constructs
constituent structure anew each time or whether some degree of
conventionalization of performance principles should be accepted.

Chapter 7: Envoi: whither word-order research?
In the final chapter, Song briefly contrasts the evolution of the various
approaches in terms of (1) deduction vs. induction, (2) single vs. multiple
principles and (3) competence vs. performance. He then identifies the major
challenges for each of the approaches: for LT, how to identify and tease out
the various factors underlying word order variation; for MGG and OT, bridging
the gap between abstract universal underlying word order and surface
diversity; for performance-based approaches, investigating a wider range of
performance factors, such as the speaker’s needs and conventionalized grammar.
He finishes by identifying a “consensus emerging [...] among the approaches
surveyed” (p. 308) on three points: word order does not seem to be something
to be explained entirely by a single principle; cross-linguistic variation
needs to be taken more seriously; and both formal and functional factors need
to be taken into account in explanations of word order variation.

EVALUATION

Because of its detailed and wide-ranging nature, I have not been able to do
justice to the book’s contents in the relatively short summary above. Of
course, the term ‘word order’ can be potentially interpreted as covering most
topics in syntax, and anyone looking for a discussion of phenomena such as
scrambling, topic/focus-movement or second-position cliticization will not
find it here. Rather, the primary topic of the book is what modern-day
generativists would call ‘linearization’: in particular, whether specifiers
and complements are pronounced to the left or to the right of their heads
(e.g. whether subjects and objects are pronounced to the left or right of
verbs or auxiliaries), and what factors lie behind the choice. On this topic,
the coverage is broad and up-to-date. Although the primary aim of the book is
to provide a summary of each approach to cross-linguistic word order
variation, some analyses are discussed in considerable detail. For example,
Song devotes over 30 pages to Zepter’s (2003) OT analysis of cross-linguistic
word order variation in the clausal and nominal domains. While this may seem
like overkill for a ‘research survey’, in fact, it provides an admirable case
study of OT syntax in action, giving the reader an appreciation of the
framework’s advantages and disadvantages, which would not have been possible
if the discussion had restricted itself to merely outlining the technicalities
of OT and briefly summarizing a couple of analyses. On the other hand, the
density of much of the discussion means that readers with no background at all
in the relevant areas may find it heavy going. However, the book is so
well-referenced that such readers will still find the book useful as a pointer
to further reading. Furthermore, those with some background in the relevant
framework will find the introduction to that framework very useful as a
‘refresher’. The book also contains a considerable amount of critical
discussion. Song is a typologist by background, but is even-handed in
assessing the merits and drawbacks of each approach.

One potential danger of grouping chapters by framework is that it might give
the impression that there are clear dividing lines between the frameworks,
when in fact, there is a good deal of overlap between many of the approaches
discussed. For example, although there are two chapters dealing with
generative grammar (of the Chomskyan variety), all of the other frameworks
discussed make some use of concepts from generative grammar – even if only
basic phrase-structural notions – in at least some of their incarnations (e.g.
Dryer 1992 from an LT perspective, Hawkins 1994 from a processing perspective,
OT approaches in general). While these connections are not explicitly denied,
the impression could be given that it is the ‘generative’ part of MGG that
distinguishes it from other approaches, whereas in fact, the clearest
distinguishing feature of the generative approaches discussed here is probably
their mentalistic underpinnings (cf. other generative approaches, such as
Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG), which do not necessarily share
these assumptions), which are closely connected with the importance MGG gives
to purely ‘formal’ (as opposed to ‘functional’) factors. Furthermore, some of
the comparisons Song makes between frameworks seem somewhat simplistic. For
example, he states that OT “pays a greater deal of attention to surface (word
order) properties than Generative Grammar does” (p. 4), and that it “seems to
strike a balance, as it were, between data-driven LT and theory-driven GB and
P&P” (p. 183-4). Yet there is nothing about MGG that makes it inherently
unsuitable for dealing with large amounts of data or with surface word order
variation, and in fact, surface word-order properties are taken very seriously
by most MGG practitioners, as emerges in Song’s discussion of the LCA in
connection with Greenberg’s Universal 20, for example. In addition, the second
quote above implies that OT and LT are not theory-driven, when it seems to me
that what Song means is that they make different assumptions about the object
of study (with OT and LT happening to share the assumption that surface word
orders have a ‘primitive’ status). That is, the differences between different
frameworks (to the extent one can generalize) have to do with how their
theoretical commitments determine the relevance of particular kinds of data.

In a way, though, the concerns I have about Song’s comparison of the various
approaches to word order variation simply reflect the fact that
generalizations about theories and frameworks are difficult to make. Song’s
discussion of the theories on their own terms, at least the ones with which I
am familiar (I wouldn’t like to commit to a view on the others), is careful,
detailed and reasonably accurate – an impressive achievement given the limited
space. This book is therefore highly recommended for researchers and students
interested in linearization and word-order typology.

REFERENCES

Abney, S. R. (1987). The noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.

Behaghel, O. (1909). Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von
Satzgliedern. Indogermanische Forschung 25: 110-142.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In: Readings in English
Transformational Grammar, R. A. Jacobs and P. S. Rosenbaum (eds.), 184-221.
Waltham, MA: Ginn and Co.

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

Chomsky, N. (1995). Bare phrase structure. In: Government and Binding and the
Minimalist Program, G. Webelhuth (ed.), 385-439. Oxford: Blackwell.

Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In: Step by Step:
Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, R. Martin, D. Michaels
and J. Uriagereka (eds.), 89-155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In: Ken Hale: A Life in Language, M.
Kenstowicz (ed.), 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (2004). Beyond explanatory adequacy. In: Structures and Beyond:
The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 3, A. Belletti (ed.), 104-131.
New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cinque, G. (2005). Deriving Greenberg's Universal 20 and its exceptions.
Linguistic Inquiry 36: 315-332.

Costa, J. (1998). Word Order Variation: A Constraint-Based Approach. The
Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.

Culicover, P. W. and R. S. Jackendoff (2005). Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Dryer, M. S. (1992). The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68:
81-138.

Epstein, S. D., E. M. Groat, et al. (1998). A Derivational Approach to
Syntactic Relations. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies.
Cognition 68: 1-76.

Greenberg, J. H. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference
to the order of meaningful elements. In: Universals of Language, J. H.
Greenberg (ed.), 58-90. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Grimshaw, J. (1997). Projection, heads, and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28:
373-422.

Hawkins, J. A. (1983). Word Order Universals. New York: Academic Press.

Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. New York &
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hornstein, N. (2009). A Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Hornstein, N., J. Nunes, et al. (2005). Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Kayne, R. S. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kayne, R. S. (2000). Parameters and Universals. New York & Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Koopman, H. and D. Sportiche (1991). The position of subjects. Lingua 85:
211-258.

Legendre, G. (2001). An introduction to Optimality Theory in syntax. In:
Optimality-Theoretic Syntax, G. Legendre, J. Grimshaw and S. Vikner (eds.),
1-27. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lehmann, W. P. (1973). A structural principle of language and its
implications. Language 49: 47-66.

López, L. (2009). Ranking the Linear Correspondence Axiom. Linguistic Inquiry
40: 239-276.

McCarthy, J. J. (2002). A Thematic Guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Richards, N. (2010). Uttering Trees. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Stowell, T. (1981). Origins of phrase structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

Tomlin, R. (1986). Basic Word Order: Functional Principles. London: Croom
Helm.

Travis, L. (1984). Parameters and effects of word order variation. Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.

Uriagereka, J. (1999). Multiple Spell-Out. In: Working Minimalism, S. D.
Epstein and N. Hornstein (eds.), 251-280. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vennemann, T. (1974). Analogy in generative grammar: The origin of word order.
In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Linguists, L.
Heilmann (ed.), 79-83. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Wasow, T. (2002). Postverbal Behavior. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Zepter, A. (2003). Phrase structure directionality: Having a few choices.
Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Matthew Reeve currently teaches at University College London, where he
obtained his PhD in 2010. His main research interests are in syntactic theory,
and in particular the interface(s) between syntax and interpretation
(information structure, ellipsis, binding theory).








----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-24-2929	
----------------------------------------------------------
Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.linguistlist.org/