Parameters and universals

By Richard S. Kayne. 2000

365 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bda30c69face1bd3e72dfa665e0bf194263aba5f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Reference to individuals, person, and the variety of mapping parameters (2008, background): “…languages are varieties found with no apparent exponence of the person feature on verbal agreement, such as Mainland Scandinavian or, according to Kayne (2000), even Modern English: in these languages, in fact, it is the pronominal system and especially the obligatory antecedent-anaphor…”
Cross-linguistic and cross-categorial variation of datives* (2004, background): “…personal pronouns is possible, as discussed in Kayne (2000), and doubling of a-dative personal pronouns is well-formed, as shown in (130a, b) (from Kayne 2000:165): (130) a. Jean Jean me me parle speaks à to moi. me ‘Jean speaks to me.’ b. Jean Jean lui her parle speaks à to elle. her ‘Jean…”
Complement and Adverbial PPs: Implications for Clause Structure (2006, background): “If we assume, after Kayne (2000, 2001), that prepositions are not merged with their (ultimate) complement, but are merged in higher AgrPs, it becomes possible, before the roll-up derivation, for the bare complement of a P to come to properly c-command the complement of another P after moving to the…”
Antisymmetry and the lexicon (2009, background): “Kayne, R.S. (1993) “Toward a Modular Theory of Auxiliary Selection,” Studia Linguistica, 47, 3-31 (reprinted in Kayne (2000)).”
Korean (and Japanese) Morphology from a Syntactic Perspective (2005, background): “However, suppose that P and VP are not in a local relation at the point of merger, and that P merges like a C (Kayne 2000), selecting for both VP and DP.”
Deriving Greenberg's Universal 20 and Its Exceptions (2005, unknown): “In Kayne 2000, 2002, 2004, prepositions are argued to be heads merged higher up in the extended projection of the NP (or outside the DP altogether), attracting their ‘‘complements’’ and forcing (in VO languages) the remnant to raise to their left, thus making them final in the DP. Interestingly,…”
A smuggling approach to the passive in english (2005, background): “This analysis supports the conclusions of Kayne (2000, 2001, 2003) and Collins (2003a), where an adposition composed purely of uninterpretable features does not take a DP complement.”
A Syntactic Universal and Its Consequences (2014, background): “Building on the well-established idea that infinitival morphology is nominal (see in particular Kayne 2000:283ff.) and the proposal by Remberger (2012) discussed in section 2.2, this change can be understood as entailing the removal of what is in Germanic a verbal projection, ge- typically being…”