Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach

By David Adger. 2003

693 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

In Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

Neural Network Acceptability Judgments (2018, methodology): “ergoes the middle voice alternation. Finally we add content to examples that are not complete sentences, replacing, for example *The Bill’s book with *The Bill’s book has a red cover. N % Description Adger (2003) 948 71.9 Syntax Textbook Baltin (1982) 96 66.7 Movement Baltin and Collins (2001) 880 6”
BLiMP: The Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs for English (2019, neutral): “We survey several syntax textbooks (e.g., Sag et al., 2003; Adger, 2003; Sportiche et al., 2013), and find that nearly all of the phenomena in BLiMP are discussed in some source.”
Do latent tree learning models identify meaningful structure in sentences? (2017, background): “This contrasts with some mainstream syntactic theories (Adger 2003; Sportiche et al. 2013), which generally take the object and the verb of a sentence to form a constituent for three reasons: taking the top right sentence in Figure 4 as an example, (i) we can replace it with a new constituent of…”
Structure and Function of the Arabic Verb (2007, background): “10 The metaterm X’ is reminiscent of “ ‘X’ Theory” which was developed in the 1970s and plays an important role in the early stages of the Principles and Parameters Approach (see Radford (1988); Haegeman (1991); Adger (2003) among others for a general characterization).”
By Phrases in Passives and Nominals (2013, background): “So, a verb that takes an object of category N has the selectional feature [S:N] (cf. Adger 2003).”
Crosslinguistic influence at the syntax proper: Interrogative subject–verb inversion in heritage Spanish (2013, background): “…there is no verb raising from T° to C° (auxiliary or lexical verb) since [Q] is weak, and therefore, no movement is required or triggered (2b) (e.g. Adger, 2001; Radford, 1997).3 To summarize, Spanish and English show different syntactic options in terms of subject–verb placement in wh-questions.”
BLiMP: A Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs for English (2020, neutral): “We survey several syntax textbooks (Sag et al., 2003; Adger, 2003; Sportiche et al., 2013), and find that nearly all of the phenomena in are discussed in some source, and most of the topics that repeatedly appear in textbooks and can be represented with minimal pairs (e.”
Linguistic Analysis of Pretrained Sentence Encoders with Acceptability Judgments (2019, background): “See Adger (2003, p.190) and Collins (2005).”
Interpretation of English multiple wh-questions by Japanese speakers: a missing uninterpretable feature account (2006, background): “4Adger’s account differs in its technical detail from the account of wh-movement proposed by Chomsky (1998), and there are other conceivable alternatives; see, for example, Pesetsky, 2000.”
Grammatical Analysis of Pretrained Sentence Encoders with Acceptability Judgments (2019, background): “(2016), sentence length and word content Adi et al. (2017), or syntactic depth and morphological number Conneau et al. (2018). Related work indirectly probes features of sentence embeddings using language understanding tasks with custom datasets manipulating specific grammatical features.”
On the Relationships Between the Grammatical Genders of Inanimate Nouns and Their Co-Occurring Adjectives and Verbs (2020, background): “We note that direct objects are closest to verbs in analyses of constituent structures, followed by subjects and then indirect objects (Chomsky, 1957; Adger, 2003).”