Advertisement

Stefan Müller, Complex Predicates: Verbal Complexes, Resultative Constructions, and Particle Verbs in German. Studies in Constraint-Based Lexicalism 13, Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2002, 468 pp. ISBN 1-57586-386-3

  • Martin Haiden
BookReview
  • 92 Downloads

References

  1. Ackerman F., Webelhuth, G. (1998). A theory of predicates. Stanford, CSLI PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  2. Bech G. (1955). Studien über das deutsche verbum infinitum. Kopenhagen, MuksgaardGoogle Scholar
  3. den Besten, H. B., Rutten J. (1989). ‘On verb raising, extraposition and free word order in Dutch’, In D. Jaspers W. G. Klooster Y. Putseys P. Seuren (Eds), Sentential complementation and the Lexicon. Studies in honor of Wim de Geest. Dordrecht, ForisGoogle Scholar
  4. Bittner M., Hale K. (1996). Ergativity: Toward a theory of a heterogeneous class. Linguistic Inquiry 27, 531–604Google Scholar
  5. Chomsky N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Berlin, de GruyterGoogle Scholar
  6. Dehe N., Jackendoff R., McIntyre A., Urban S. (2002). Verb-particle explorations.Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  7. den Dikken M. (1995). Particles. On the syntax of verb-particle triadic and causative constructions. Oxford, New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  8. den Dikken, M. (2003). On the syntax of locative and directional adpositional phrases, CUNY.Google Scholar
  9. ÉKiss, K., van Riemsdijk, H. C. (Eds.): (2004). Verb clusters. A study of Hungarian, German and Dutch. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  10. Emonds J. E. (1972). Evidence that indirect object movement is a structure-preserving rule. Foundations of Language, 8, 546–561Google Scholar
  11. Evers, A. (1975). The transformational cycle in Dutch and German. Ph.D. dissertation, Distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
  12. Fanselow, G. (1989). Coherent infinitives in German: Restructuring vs. IP-complementation. In C. Bhatt, E. Löbel, C. Schmidt (Eds.), Syntactic phrase structure phenomena in noun phrases and sentences (pp. 1–16). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  13. Fraser B. (1976). The verb-particle combination in English. New York, San Francisco, London, Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  14. Gelhaus H. (1977). Der modale Infinitiv.Tü bingen, NarrGoogle Scholar
  15. Haegeman L. van Riemsdijk H. (1986). Verb projection raising, scope, and the typology of rules affecting verbs. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 417–466Google Scholar
  16. Haiden M. (1996). The aspect of short scrambling. Wiener Linguistische Gazette, 57–59, 121–146Google Scholar
  17. Haiden M. (2005a). Theta theory. Berlinm New York, Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar
  18. Haiden, M. (2005b). Verb-particle constructions. In M. Everaert H. Blackwell companion to syntax (Vol. 5. pp. 342–373). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. Haider H. (1984a). Mona Lisa lächelt stumm–ber das sogenannte deutsche “Rezipientenpassiv”. Linguistische Berichte, 89, 32–42Google Scholar
  20. Haider H. (1984b). Was zu haben ist und was zu sein hat. Bemerkungen zum Infinitiv. Papiere zur Linguistik, 30, 23–36Google Scholar
  21. Haider H. (1993). Deutsche Syntax–generativ: Vorstudien zur Theorie einer projektiven Grammatik. Tü bingen, NarrGoogle Scholar
  22. Hinterhölzl R. (1997). Restructuring as XP-movement, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  23. Kayne, R. (1985). Principles of particle constructions. In J. Gueron, H.-G. Obenauer J.-Y. Pollock (Eds.), Grammatical representation (pp. 101–140). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  24. Keenan E., Comrie B. (1977). ‘Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar’. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63–99Google Scholar
  25. Kefer M., Lejeune J. (1974). Satzglieder innerhalb eines Verbalkomplexes. Deutsche Sprache, 2,322–334Google Scholar
  26. Kiss T. (1995). Infinitive Komplementation. Tü bingen, NiemeyerGoogle Scholar
  27. Koopman H. (2000). The syntax of specifiers and heads. London, New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Koopman H., Szabolcsi A. (2000). Verbal complexes Cambridge Mass. MIT Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Lötscher A. (1978). Zur Verbstellung im Zü richdeutschen und in anderen Varietäten des. Dialektologie und Linguistik, 45, 1–29Google Scholar
  30. Lüdeling A. (2001). Particle verbs and similar constructions in German. Stanford, CSLI PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  31. McIntyre A. (2001). German double particle verbs as preverbs Morphology and Conceptual Semantics. Tü bingen, StauffenbergGoogle Scholar
  32. Meurers, W. D. (2003). To flip or not to flip: On the nature of irregularities in the German verbal complex. Ohio State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  33. Mü ller S. (1999). Deutsche syntax deklarativ: Head-driven phrase structure grammar fü r das Deut- sche. Tübingen, NiemeyerGoogle Scholar
  34. Neeleman, Ad. (1994).Complex predicates. Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  35. Neeleman Ad., Weerman F. (1993). The balance between syntax and morphology: Dutch par-ticles and resultatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 11, 433-475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Patocka, F. (1997). Satzgliedstellung in den bairischen Dialekten Österreichs. Frankfurt/Main, Berlin,Bern, New York, Paris, Wien: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  37. Rapp I. (1997). Partizipien und semantische Struktur: zu passivischen Konstruktionen mit dem 3. Status. Tü bingen, StauffenbergGoogle Scholar
  38. Reape, M. (1993). A formal theory of word order: A case study in West Germanic, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  39. Reis M. (1985). Mona Lisa kriegt zuviel-Vom sogenannten ’Rezipientenpassiv’ im Deutschen. Linguistische Berichte, 96, 140-155Google Scholar
  40. Reis M., Sternefeld W. (2004). Susanne Wurmbrand: Infinitives and Clause Structure. Linguistics, 42, 469-508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rosengren, I. (1992). Zum Problem der kohärenten Verben im Deutschen, in P. Suchsland (Eds), Biologische und soziale Grundlagen der Sprachfähigkeit (pp. 265-297). Niemeyer, Tü bingen, 265-297.Google Scholar
  42. Rutten, J. (1991). Infinitival complements and auxiliaries, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  43. Sternefeld, W. (1989). Beheaded Barriers, Arbeitspapiere Fachgruppe Sprachwissenschaft 14.Google Scholar
  44. Stiebels B. (1996). Lexikalische Argumente und Adjunkte. Berlin, Akademie VerlagGoogle Scholar
  45. Stiebels B., Wunderlich D. (1994). Morphology feeds syntax: The case of particle verbs. Lin- guistics 32: 913-968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stowell T. (1983). Subjects across categories. The Linguistic Review, 2, 285-312Google Scholar
  47. Taraldsen, T., K. (1983). Parametric variation in phrase structure, University of Tromsö.Google Scholar
  48. Vailette, N. (2001). ’Book review: Stefan Mü ller (1999), Deutsche Syntax Deklarativ: Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar fur das Deutsche (Linguistische Arbeiten 394), The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 4, 69-84.Google Scholar
  49. van Riemsdijk, H. C. (1978). A case study in syntactic markedness: The binding nature of preposi- tional phrases. Lisse: The Peter de Ridder Press [Reprinted: by Foris Publications Dordrecht and currently by Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin].Google Scholar
  50. Williams E. (1983). Against small clauses’. Linguistic Inquiry, 14, 287-308Google Scholar
  51. Wurmbrand S. (2001). Infinitives. Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin, Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar
  52. Wurmbrand S. (2004). Two types of restructuring-Lexical vs. Functional, Lingua, 114, 991-1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zeller, J. (1999).Particle verbs, local domains, and a theory of lexical licensing, Ph.D. dissertation, Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universitä t.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UMR 8528 – SILEXUniversite Lille 3Villeneuve d’Ascq CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations