Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-686fd747b7-4b24c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-13T14:42:57.600Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2024

Norbert Hornstein
Norbert Hornstein
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, Baltimore
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Merge Hypothesis
A Theory of Aspects of Syntax
 , pp. 234 - 239
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackerman, L., Frazier, M. and Yoshida, M.. 2018. Resumptive pronouns can ameliorate illicit island extractions. Linguistic Inquiry, 49.4: 847–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aoun, J. 1986. Generalized Binding: The Syntax and Logical Form of Wh Interrogatives. De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Aoun, J., Hornstein, N., Lightfoot, D. and Weinberg, A.. 1987. Two types of locality. Linguistic Inquiry, 18.4: 537–77.Google Scholar
Aoun, J., Choueiri, L. and Hornstein, N.. 2001. Resumption, movement and derivational economy. Linguistic Inquiry, 32.3: 371–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baltin, M. 1995. Floating quantifiers, PRO, and predication. Linguistic Inquiry, 26: 199–248.Google Scholar
Bejar, S. and Massam, D.. 1999. Multiple case checking. Syntax, 2: 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berwick, R. and Epstein, S.D.. 1995. On the convergence of “minimalist” syntax and categorial grammar. Presented at 1st international AMSAT Workshop in Language Processing (AMiLP) ’95), University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands, December 6–8.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. and Weinberg, A.. 1984. The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. and Weinberg, A.. 1986. The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. 1984. The language bioprogram hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7.2: 173–88. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00044149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleam, T. and Hornstein, N.. 2018. Deriving multiple “object” constructions. In Gallego, A. and Martin, R. (eds.), Language Syntax, and the Natural Sciences, pp. 9–33. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, J. 2002. A-chains at the PF interface: Copies and covert movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 20: 197–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C. and Hornstein, N.. 2007. On (non-)obligatory control. In Davis, W.D. and Dubinsky, S. (eds.), New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising, pp. 251–62. Springer.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C., Hornstein, N. and Nunes, J.. 2007. Overt copies in reflexive and control structures: A movement analysis. In A. Conroy, C. Jing, C. Nakao and E. Takahashi (eds.), University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics, 15: 1–46.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C., Hornstein, N. and Nunes, J.. 2010. Control as Movement. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowers, J. 1973. Grammatical Relations. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Branigan, P. 1992. Subjects and Complementizers. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Brody, M. 1993. θ-theory and arguments. Linguistic Inquiry, 24: 1–23.Google Scholar
Brown, R. 1973. A First Language. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruening, B. 2014. Precede-and-command revisited. Language, 90.2: 342–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cable, S. 2007. The Grammar of Q: Q-Particles and the Nature of Wh-Fronting, as Revealed by the Wh-Questions of Tlingit. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. 1999. The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1955 (printed 1975). The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. Springer.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1964. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of a Theory of Syntax. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1967. A review of B.F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. In Jakobovits, L.A. and Miron, M.S. (eds.), Readings in the Psychology of Language, pp. 142–43. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, S.R. and Kiparsky, P. (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, pp. 232–86. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1975 (1956). Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. Plenum/University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1977. On Wh-movement. In Cullicover, P., Wasow, T. and Akmajian, A. (eds.), Formal Syntax, pp. 71–132. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986a. Knowledge of Language. Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986b. Barriers. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1993. The minimalist program. In Chomsky 1995a, pp. 167–217.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1995a. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1995b. Bare phrase structure. In Webelhuth, G. (ed.), Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program, pp. 383–400. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua, 130: 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2018. What Kind of Creatures Are We? Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2021. Minimalism: Where are we now and where can we hope to go. Gengo Kenkyu (Journal of the Linguistic Society of Japan), 160: 1–41. https://doi.org/10.11435/gengo.160.0_1.Google Scholar
Collins, C. 2002. Eliminating labels. In Epstein, S. and Seely, T.D. (eds.), Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, pp. 43–64. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Collins, C. and Stabler, E.. 2016. A formalization of minimalist syntax. Syntax, 19.1: 43–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, J. 2007. Syntax, more or less. Mind, 116(464): 805–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, J. 2020. Conjoining meanings without losing our heads. Mind and Language, 35: 224–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Alessandro, R. 2019. The achievements of Generative Syntax: A time chart and some reflections. Catalan Journal of Linguistics Special Issue: 7–26.Google Scholar
David, P. 1985. Clio and the economics of QWERTY. The American Economic Review, 75.2: 332–37.Google Scholar
de Marken, Carl. 1995. On the unsupervised induction of phrase structure grammars. In SIGDAT 1995. www.demarcken.org/carl/papers/sigdat.pdf.Google Scholar
Demirdache, H. 1991. Resumptive Chains in Restricted Relatives, Appositives and Dislocation Structures. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Demirdache, H. and Percus, O.. 2011. Resumptives, movement and interpretation. In Rouveret, A. (ed.), Resumptive Pronouns at the Interfaces, pp. 367–94. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ding, , Melloni, N. L., Zhang, H., Tian, X. and Poeppel, D.. 2016. Cortical tracking of hierarchical linguistic structures in connected speech. Nature Neuroscience, 19: 158–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doliana, A. 2021. All about Alles: The Syntax of Wh-Quantifier Float in German. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Drummond, A. and Kush, D.. 2015. “Reanalysis” is raising to object. Syntax, 18.4: 425–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enc, M. 1981. Tense Without Scope: An Analysis of Nouns as Indexicals. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Epstein, S.D. 1999. Un-principled syntax: The derivation of syntactic relations. In Epstein and Hornstein, pp. 317–45.Google Scholar
Epstein, S.D. and Hornstein, N. (eds.). 1999. Working Minimalism. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, S.D., Groat, E., Kawashima, R. and Kitahara, H.. 1998. A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, S.D., Kitahara, H. and Seely, T. D.. 2015. Explorations in Maximizing Syntactic Minimization. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, S.D., Kitahara, H. and Seely, T.D.. 2022. A Minimalist Theory of Simplest Merge. Routledge.Google Scholar
Evans, G. 1980. Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 11.2: 337–62.Google Scholar
Ferreira, M. 2009. Null subjects and finite control in Brazilian Portuguese. In Nunes, J. (ed.), Minimalist Essays in Brazilian Portuguese Syntax, pp. 17–49. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujii, T. 2005. Cycle, Linearization of Chains, and Multiple Case Checking. Ms., University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Gallistel, C.R. 2018. Finding numbers in the brain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B373: 20170119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haddad, Y.A. and Potsdam, E.. 2013. Linearizing the control relation: A typology. In Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. (eds.), Challenges to Linearization, pp. 235–68. De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 1991. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J. 1985. On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry, 16.4: 547–93.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. 2001. Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. 2003. On control. In Hendrick, R. (ed.), Minimalist Syntax, pp. 6–81. Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. 2008. A Theory of Syntax. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. 2017. On Merge. In McGilvray, J. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Chomsky, pp. 69–86. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. 2018. The minimalist program after 25 years. Annual Review of Linguistics, 4: 49–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. 2019. The stupendous success of the Minimalist Program. In Kertész, A., Moravcsik, E. and Rákosi, C. (eds.), Current Approaches to Syntax, pp. 187–214. De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. and Nunes, J.. 2014. Movement and control. In Carnie, A., Sato, Y. and Siddiqi, D. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Syntax, pp. 239–63. Routledge.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. and Polinsky, M.. 2010. Control as movement across languages and constructions. In Hornstein, N. and Polinsky, M. (eds.), Movement Theory of Control, pp. 1–42. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N., Lasnik, H. and Uriagereka, J.. 2003/2007. The dynamics of Islands: Speculations on the locality of movement. Linguistic Analysis, 33: 149–75.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N., Nunes, J. and Grohmann, K.. 2005. Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.-T.J. 1982. Move Wh-in a language without Wh-movement. Linguistic Review, 1: 369–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, T. 2021. The Chomsky Hierarchy. In Allott, N., Lohndal, T. and Rey, G. (eds.), Blackwell Companion to Chomsky, pp. 74–95. Wiley-BlackwellCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Idsardi, W. and Lidz, J.. 1998. Chains and phono-logical form. In Dimitriadis, A., Lee, H., Moisset, C. and Williams, A. (eds.), U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, 5.1: 109–25.Google Scholar
Ito, Y. 2010. Syntax and Semantics of Long-Distance Reflexives: An Overt Movement Analysis. M.A. thesis, University of Tokyo.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1990. On Larson’s analysis of the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 21: 427–56.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 2002. Pronouns and their antecedents. In Epstein, S. and Seely, T.D. (eds.), Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, pp. 133–66. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Keller, F. 2000. Gradience in Grammar: Experimental and Computational Aspects of Degrees of Grammaticality. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
King, J. 1986. Pronouns, descriptions and the semantics of discourse. Philosophical Studies, 51: 341–63.Google Scholar
Koopman, H. and Sportiche, D.. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua, 85: 211–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koster, J. 1984. On binding and control. Linguistic Inquiry, 15: 417–59.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Y. 1988. Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. Linguisticae Investigationes, 12: 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 2000. Elements of Control. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 2006. Chain resolution in Hebrew V(P) fronting. Syntax, 9.1: 32–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 2011. Predication vs. aboutness in copy raising. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29: 779–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, R. 1990. Double objects revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry, 21: 589–632.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. 1986. On the necessity of binding conditions. In Lasnik, C.H., Essays on Anaphora, pp. 149–67. Kluwer.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. 1991. On the necessity of binding conditions. In Freidin, R. (ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, pp. 7–28. MIT Press. [Reprinted in H. Lasnik, Essays on Anaphora, pp. 149–67, Kluwer, 1989.]Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. and Saito, M.. 1984. On the nature of proper government. Linguistic Inquiry, 15: 235–89.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. and Saito, M.. 1991. On the subject of infinitives. In Dobrin, L. et al. (eds.), Papers from the 27th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 324–43. Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Lees, R. and Klima, E.. 1963. Rules for English pronominalization. Language, 39.1: 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, D., Grohe, L., Schulz, P. and Yang, C.. 2021. The distributional learning of recursive structures. In Proceedings of the 45th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, pp. 471–85. Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Lidz, J. and Drummond, A.. 2012. Island Introducing Reflexives in Kannada. Unpublished ms. University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Lu, J., Thompson, C.K. and Yoshida, M.. 2020. Chinese wh-in-situ and islands: A formal judgment study. Linguistic Inquiry, 51.3. 611–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M.R. 1983. On control and control theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 14: 421–46.Google Scholar
Manzini, M.R. and Roussou, A.. 2000. A minimalist theory of A-movement and control. Lingua, 110.6: 409–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, A. 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 1991. Case and licensing. In Westphal, G., Ao, B. and Chae, H.-R. (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Eastern Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL 8), pp. 234–53. CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Marcus, G. 2001. The Algebraic Mind. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, J. 1997. Subjecthood and subject positions. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax, pp. 197–235. Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, J. 2000. Quantifier float and Wh-movement in an Irish English. Linguistic Inquiry, 31.1: 57–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, J. 2006. Resumption. In Everaert, M. and van Riemskijk, H. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, pp. 94–117. Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, J. 2019. Roots don’t select, categorial heads do: Lexical-selection of PPs may vary by category. Linguistic Review, 36.3: 325–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moro, A. 2016. Impossible Languages. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Motomura, M. 2002. Zibun: An analysis based on movement. M.A. thesis, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. 1982. Parameterizing the notion of “head.” PDF, Radboud Repository, Nijmegen. https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/bitstream/handle/2066/14544/3884.pdf.Google Scholar
Nunes, J. 2001. Sidewards movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 32: 303–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, J. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sidewards Movement. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, J. 2019. Remarks on finite control and hyper-raising in Brazilian Portuguese. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics, 18.1: 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obata, M. and Epstein, S.D.. 2011. Feature splitting, internal Merge: Improper movement, intervention and the A/A’ distinction. Syntax, 14.2: 122–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega-Santos, I. 2011. On relativized minimality, memory and cue-based parsing. Iberia: International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 3: 35–64.Google Scholar
Partee, B.H. 1971. On the requirement that transformations preserve meaning. In Fillmore, C.J. and Langendoen, D.T. (eds.), Studies in Linguistic Semantics, pp. 1–21. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. 1982. Paths and Categories. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. and Torrego, E.. 2000. T-to-C movement: causes and consequences. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, pp. 355–426. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pietroski, P. 2018. Conjoining Meanings: Semantics without Truth Values. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poeppel, D. and Embick, D. 2005. Defining the relation between linguistics and neuroscience. In Cutler, A. (ed.), Twenty-First Century Psycholinguistics: Four Cornerstones, pp. 103–18. Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. and Potsdam, E.. 2002. Backward control. Linguistic Inquiry, 33: 245–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, M. and Potsdam, E.. 2006. Expanding the scope of control and raising. Syntax, 9.2: 171–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, M. and Potsdam, E.. 2012. Backward raising. Syntax, 15.1: 75–108.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M., Clemens, L., Morgan, A., Xiang, M. and Heestland, D.. 2013. Resumption in English. In Sprouse, J. and Hornstein, N. (eds.), Experimental Syntax and Island Effects, pp. 341–59. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Potsdam, E. and Runner, J.. 2001. Richard returns: Copy raising and its implications. In Andronis, H.E.M., Ball, C. and Neuvel, S. (eds.), Papers from the 37th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 453–68. Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Preminger, O. 2021. The Anaphor Agreement Effect: Further Evidence Against Binding as Agreement. Ms., University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Pylyshyn, Z. 1994. Primitive mechanisms of spatial attention. Cognition, 50: 363–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quine, W.V.O. 1982. Methods of Logic. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. 1983. Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Reuland, E. 2011. Anaphora and Language Design. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Richards, M. 2007. On feature inheritance: An argument from the Phase Impenetrability Condition. Linguistic Inquiry, 38: 563–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, M. 2012. On feature inheritance, defective phases and the movement–morphology connection. In Gallego, A. (ed.), Phases, pp. 195–232. De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1990a. On the anaphor-agreement effect. Rivista di Linguistica, 2: 27–42.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1990b. Relativized Minimality. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L., Elements of Grammar: A Handbook of Generative Syntax, pp. 281–337. Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues, C. 2004. Impoverished Morphology and A Movement Out of Case Domains. Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. 1965. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Schein, B. 1994. Plurals and Events. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. 1986. The Crosslinguistic Acquisition of Language, I and II. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Sportiche, D. 1986. Zibun. Linguistic Inquiry, 17.2: 369–74.Google Scholar
Sportiche, D. 2005. Division of Labor between Merge and Move: Strict Locality of Selection and Apparent Reconstruction Paradoxes. Ms. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000163.Google Scholar
Sportiche, D. 2017. Relative Clauses. Ms. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003444.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. 2007. A Program for Experimental Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J., Wagers, M. and Phillips, C.. 2013. Deriving competing predictions from grammatical approaches and reductionist approaches to island effects. In Sprouse, J. and Hornstein, N. (eds.), Experimental Syntax and Island Effects, pp. 21–41. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stabler, E. 2010. Computational perspectives on Minimalism. In Boeckx, C. (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism, pp. 616–41. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stamp, J. 2013. Fact or fiction? The legend of the QWERTY keyboard. The Smithsonian Magazine. May 3, 2013.Google Scholar
Wilson, G. 1984. Pronouns and pronominal descriptions: A new semantic category. Philosophical Studies, 45: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolford, E. 1999. More on the anaphor-agreement effect. Linguistic Inquiry, 30: 257–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwart, J.-W. 2002. Issues relating to a derivational theory of binding. In Epstein, S.D. and Seely, T.D. (eds.), Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, Generative Syntax 6, pp. 269–302. Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • Norbert Hornstein, University of Maryland, Baltimore
  • Book: The Merge Hypothesis
  • Online publication: 15 February 2024
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009415750.012
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • Norbert Hornstein, University of Maryland, Baltimore
  • Book: The Merge Hypothesis
  • Online publication: 15 February 2024
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009415750.012
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • Norbert Hornstein, University of Maryland, Baltimore
  • Book: The Merge Hypothesis
  • Online publication: 15 February 2024
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009415750.012
Available formats
×