See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/248906241

Baker, Mark C. Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives

Article  in  Studies in Language · January 2005

DOI: 10.1075/sl.29.3.11pan

CITATIONS READS

0 1,215

1 author:

Phoevos Panagiotidis
University of Cyprus
39 PUBLICATIONS   246 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The categorial status of adjectives From theory to typology, and back again View project

The categorial status of adjectives: From theory to typology, and back again View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Phoevos Panagiotidis on 28 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

John Benjamins Publishing Company

This is a contribution from Studies in Language 29:3

© 2005. John Benjamins Publishing Company
This electronic file may not be altered in any way.
The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to
be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only.
Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible
to members (students and staff) only of the author’s/s’ institute.
For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the
publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com).
Please contact rights@benjamins.nl or consult our website: www.benjamins.com
Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com
 Book Reviews 7

Reviewer’s address:
Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach
Department of Spanish & Department of Linguistics
The Ohio State University
298 Hagerty Hall
1775 College Road
Columbus, OH 43210
USA
E-mail: gutierrez-rexach.1@osu.edu


Baker, Mark C. Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives.
Cambridge: CUP 2003. 353 pp.
Reviewed by Phoevos Panagiotidis (Cyprus College)

The book under review is a monograph exclusively and comprehensively deal-

ing with the question of how many and which parts of speech exist in the world’s
languages from a generative point of view. Focusing on lexical categories, the
author asserts there to be just three: Verbs, Nouns and Adjectives — as the title
indicates. Rather than deal with aspects of a theory of categorial features, as has
extensively been done in the generative literature on category, Baker’s mono-
graph offers a full and thoroughly argued for theory of lexical categories. In
doing so it examines evidence from a great number of typologically unrelated
languages, making it a sound piece of typological work, as well as a theoretical
work with a precise proposal.
The first chapter introduces the topic and reviews the literature. Baker
discusses previous functional typological as well as generative theories of
grammatical category. He stresses their main shortcoming to be their very lim-
ited explanatory power. In the generative framework, the main line of work
consists of stipulating features of the [±N] and [±V] ilk, after Chomsky’s (1970)
Remarks on Nominalization, without these features and/or their values playing
any substantial role in morphology, syntax and semantic interpretation. One of
the few exceptions, Stowell’s (1981) attempt to correlate Case assignment with
exactly the values of the [V] and [N] features, was later superseded for inde-
pendent reasons. Turning to functionalist typology, Croft (1991), Langacker
(1987) and — more famously — Givón (1984) have all worked on correlating
categories with a time-stability continuum: nouns are prototypically the most

© 2005. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
72 Book Reviews

stable predicates, adjectives less so and verbs are prototypically the least stable
ones. Although insights from this linguistic ‘tradition’ inform and indeed are
crucial to the theory offered in ‘Lexical Categories’, they themselves fail to offer
restrictive explanations as to what can be a noun, verb or adjective and what
the syntactic effect of being a noun, verb or adjective is. The first chapter con-
cludes with an outline of the theory to be expounded in the monograph.
The second chapter argues that verbs are, in a sense, inherently predicative.
That much is more or less common knowledge (cf. Langacker 1987, Déchaine
1993 among many others). Baker goes on to claim that what this entails for the
syntax of verbs is that they always project a specifier, a ‘subject’. In fact, verbs
are verbs (and inherently predicative) because they are the only lexical category
that projects a specifier. The existence of a functional category, the ‘predicativ-
iser’ Pred is subsequently argued for, à la Bowers (1993). Thus, whereas the
subject Patricia ‘originates’ from a SpecVP (or SpecvP) in Patricia bought a car,
it will originate from SpecPredP in Patricia is a lawyer, or Patricia is happy, af-
ter Pred combines with N and A respectively. The main areas where V contrasts
with Pred+N and Pred+A combinations are the possibility to be merged with
Tense (Section 2.5) and causatives (2.6). Especially causatives are straightfor-
wardly shown not to be possible with N or A exactly because of Pred’s interven-
ing effect. The chapter continues with a discussion of unaccusative verbs and
their not being equivalent to adjectives as well as the possibility to decompose
verbs into V+A. The chapter concludes with a typological survey showing that
there are no verbless languages.
Chapter 3 argues that nouns are sortal predicates: the only lexical category
with a criterion of identity. A criterion of identity, to oversimplify, is whether
a question can be asked if x and y are the same. This question is valid only if
x and y are nouns. This explains why nouns are the only category to co-occur
with numerals and quantifiers: their semantics, that of counting and ranging, is
only compatible with ‘sortal predicates’: nouns. The syntactic trigger of nouns’
criterion of identity is argued by Baker to be a referential index nouns bear. This
in turn makes them ideal arguments of predicates, V or Pred. After a discus-
sion of the repercussions of this with respect to binding, anaphora and argum-
enthood, the chapter concludes with a discussion of the universality of nouns,
the (in)famous ‘Nootka debate’. Baker shows that even languages claimed not
to distinguish between nouns and verbs actually do: even in them there exist
grammatical elements that can only combine with true nouns.
Chapter 4 is, expectedly, about adjectives. Adjective is claimed to be the un-
marked lexical category, bearing no referential index and no specifier. This makes

© 2005. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
 Book Reviews 73

them ideal modifiers, as they do not need to be the argument of something, like
nouns, or project an argument structure needing arguments itself, like verbs do.
Along these lines their co-occurrence with the category Degree is explained and
their relation with adverbs, which Baker takes to be A+N entities. A discussion
on the universality of adjectives closes off the discussion on adjectives.
The final chapter mainly discusses two important issues: whether gram-
matical category is not inherent but the reflex of functional structure above
category-less roots, as Marantz (1997) and others have claimed. Baker argues
against this hypothesis: even the smallest lexical element, stripped from func-
tional structure, appears to behave as a noun, verb or adjective rather than a
category-less (hence free in its distribution) root. For instance, incorporation
into noun ‘roots’ is universally impossible. The chapter concludes with a dis-
cussion of the relation between derivational morphology and syntactic opera-
tions as well as the semantics of categories.
An Appendix on Adpositions as functional heads concludes the study.
As for an evaluation of the work, I, first of all, wish to nail my colours to the
mast: I have to avow that I believe ‘Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns and Adjec-
tives’ to be one of the most thorough, ground-breaking and breathtaking in its
scope works in syntactic theory ever. The deceptively simple task of offering
an account of how many and which parts of speech exist has been either over-
looked or offered many non-explanatory, mainly merely taxonomic accounts,
counter to what grammatical theory is about. ‘Lexical Categories’ undertakes
the task of offering a generative theory of categories and gives us a superbly
elegant, straightforward and — above all — falsifiable theory of lexical cat-
egories. It calls upon evidence from a constellation of languages, a typological
method, exactly in order to shed light on ‘well-hidden’ aspects of Universal
Grammar, a ‘formalist’ goal. The resulting theory builds on scattered insights in
both ‘traditions’ and it is straightforward: being N, V or A is the result of a priv-
ative feature system of [N], [V] (and nothing). Each feature, or the lack thereof,
triggers a particular syntactic behaviour, including co-occurrence restrictions,
and correlates with a particular ‘function’ and interpretation at LF (argument,
predicate, other/modifier). The inclusion of functional elements that can either
project specifiers (e.g. Pred) or can bear/inherit referential indices (e.g. Comp,
Det) completes the picture.
I will now try to more objectively impart my enthusiasm by looking at
what I consider five success stories of the book.
Verbs: One of the fundamental hypotheses of Baker’s theory is the distinc-
tion between a lexical predicative category, V, (or V-v, more precisely) and its

© 2005. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
74 Book Reviews

functional equivalent Pred. Both categories, but not exclusively, can project
specifiers, hence being able to predicate something of a specifier. Baker’s analy-
sis is in contrast to Bowers’ one, where Pred mediates all predication. The dif-
ference has syntactic repercussions and is not merely one of terminology and
theoretical viewpoint. In order to clarify this point, I will review two matters
the split between a lexical predicative category V(-v) and Pred sheds light on.
The first is a simple empirical fact about co-ordination. The second is the cross-
linguistic behaviour of morphological causatives.
Baker (p. 37–9) points out that it is impossible to co-ordinate an adjectival
and a verbal predicate. It is also impossible to co-ordinate a verbal and a nomi-
nal predicate.
(1) * Eating poisoned food made Chris [A sick] and [V die].
(2) * A hard blow to the head made Chris [V fall] and [N an invalid].

Of course (1) and (2) are not particularly electrifying the way they stand. Co-
ordination of different categories is generally taken to be impossible, so it is
maybe not significant that adjectives and verbs or verbs and nouns do not co-
ordinate. Nevertheless, observe what happens when we try to co-ordinate an
adjectival and a nominal predicate.
(3) I consider John [A crazy] and [N a fool].

Baker goes on to explain the contrast between (1) and (2) on the one hand with
(3) by appealing to the hypothesis that nominal and adjectival predicates are
shelled inside a specifier-projecting functional category Pred. So, in (3) we are
really dealing with the co-ordination of identical categories, PredPs, whereas
in (1) and (2) we are dealing with failed attempts to co-ordinate a PredP with
a VP in each case.
Let us now turn to morphological causatives. Morphological causatives
exist in a typologically diverse number of languages such as Bantu, Japanese,
Mohawk and Quechua. They have a pertinent characteristic in common: they
can only have verbs incorporated into them (Baker 1988 for an incorporation
analysis of causatives). The reason why is actually explained by Baker’s theory
of lexical categories put forward in this monograph, once Li’s Generalisation
(1990) — Proper Head Movement Generalisation (PHMG) in Baker (p. 53) — is
considered:
(4) A lexical head A cannot move to a functional head B and then to a lexical
head C.

© 2005. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
 Book Reviews 75

Let us now see how the whole thing works, summarising the discussion in Sec-
tion 2.6 of the book: morphological causatives must be incorporated to. This
can be done with V heads, which move and left-adjoin to the causative. This is
the case of the causative morpheme -sase- in Japanese in (5). The question is
why morphological causatives such as -sase- attach only to Vs and not on Ns,
as in (6), or indeed anything else:
(5) John-ga Mary-o ik-(s)ase-ta
John-nom Mary-acc go-caus-past
‘John made Mary go’
(6) * Hanako-ga Taroo-o sensei-sase-ta
Hanako-nom Taroo-acc teacher-caus-past
‘Hanako made Taroo a teacher’

This answer is provided as follows: the V(-v) in (5) projects a specifier, hence a
subject of the predicate it denotes, without the intervention of Pred. Abstract-
ing away from v for exposition, when the causative morpheme -sase- merges
with the V ik-, the latter can readily incorporate into the former: [CAUSP [CAUS V
CAUS] V]. Let us now consider what happens in the ungrammatical example
(6): if -sase- merges directly with the N sensei, the result will be a subject-less
causative, as nouns do not project specifiers, hence the need for Pred. But in a
Caus…Pred…N configuration, the N will have to first move to Pred (function-
al) and then to incorporate into the Caus morpheme -sase-, hence violating the
generalisation in (4). In other words, appealing to a restrictive theory of cat-
egorial features (‘N does not project its own specifier’) plus the aforementioned
generalisation, for which there exists independent evidence, we can explain the
elective affinities between verbs and morphological causatives.
The nature of nouns: If verbs are lexical categories with a specifier, nouns
are lexical categories bearing a referential index, in other words they are sor-
tal predicates in the sense of Geach (1962): they are the only category about
which it is coherent to ask whether a particular instance thereof is different
or the same to another. Baker uses this definition of noun to explain why only
nominals can be arguments, next to functional categories bearing a categorial
index, such as the C that (p. 139). Here I will only focus on a prediction Baker’s
theory makes as regards co-occurrence restrictions between functional and
lexical heads, namely, how smoothly it captures why Quantifiers (Q) and Nu-
merals (Num) can only appear in the projection of an N. If nouns are the only
sortal predicates, then they are the only ones that can be differentiated from
each other, bear indices in other words. It is only suitable then that they can

© 2005. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
76 Book Reviews

be counted, using the category Num or be quantified over, using the category
Q. Adjectives are also excluded, unless modifying a null noun (Section 3.3 but
also Kester, 1996; Lobeck, 1991; 1995; Panagiotidis, 2002; 2003; Sleeman, 1993;
1996), because they mark neither a V (specifier) nor an N (index) feature.
The universality of nouns: In Section 3.9 of the book we find a critical ex-
amination of what has been known as the ‘Nootka debate’, i.e. whether the
category Noun is universal or, more accurately, whether the Verb-Noun dis-
tinction is universal. This turns out to be one of the most interesting parts of
the monograph, as Baker examines the issue not by trying to apply his theory
on the facts of a particular language (group) in the manner of straightjacket
but by surveying a number of typologically unrelated languages that allegedly
lack a distinction between Noun and Verb and then dealing with each one in
depth. The method he is using is trying to tease apart the lexical element from
its functional shell in these languages, this being necessary because exactly in
these languages there are for instance determiners selecting predicative con-
stituents; but the question is: what kind of lexical element do such predica-
tive constituents contain? (p. 177) Immediately before that, Baker perceptively
points out that morphological similarity between (some) nouns and verbs is
not by itself a criterion of them being identical to each other: should this be
so, English elements like work, fish, try, go, pool etc. could be claimed to be
unmarked for category; in this case, nevertheless, it is obvious that there are
two of everything, related to each other via zero-derivation. So, we should heed
that our criteria are not too ‘surfacey’. In any case, Baker concludes that indeed
the Noun-Verb and the Noun-Adjective distinctions are universal. Let us go
through evidence from three of the languages that he analyses:
a. nouns as different from verbs: Makah (Wakashan) (p. 179 — from Jakob-
sen, 1979);
b. nouns as different from adjectives: Quechua (p. 181)
c. nouns as different from both: St’átimcets (Salish) (p. 182)
In Makah, any word “can function as an argument when followed by a deter-
miner such as -oiq.” Nevertheless, true nouns can stand as arguments without
it, whereas verbs (and adjectives) obligatorily need it in order to do so; in other
words, they must be nominalised. Consider the behaviour of the verb t’iq’was
(‘sit on the ground’) below (Baker’s (171)):
(7) a. Da:s?its t’iq’was-iq
see.pass.indic.1sg sit.on.ground-det

© 2005. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
 Book Reviews 77

b. * Da:s?its t’iq’was
see.pass.indic.1sg sit.on.ground
‘The one sitting on the ground sees me.’

The above cannot be a word order problem, because in Makah predicates come
first in the clause.
In Quechua, the accusative Case marker -ta can mark both nouns and ad-
jectives, which then can function as objects of the verb. Nevertheless, subjects
can only be true nouns:
(8) a. Runa čaya-mu-ša
man arrive-cisloc–3sg.subj
‘The man arrived’
b. * Hatun čaya-mu-ša
big arrive-cisloc–3sg.subj
‘The big one arrived.’

Turning to St’átimcets, it possesses a discontinuous determiner ti-a that sand-

wiches a constituent acting as a relative clause. Crucially, the head of the rela-
tive clause can only be intrinsically nominal:
(9) a. Ats’x-en-Ø-lhkan [[ti qwatsáts-Ø-a] sqaycw]
saw-trans–3sg.abs–1erg the leave–3sg.abs-the man
‘I saw the man who left’
b. Ats’x-en-Ø-lhkan [[ti xzúm-Ø-a] spzúza7]
saw-trans–3sg.abs–1erg the big–3sg.abs-the bird
‘I saw the big bird’
c. * Ats’x-en-Ø-lhkan [[ti sqaycw-Ø-a] qwatsáts]
saw-trans–3sg.abs–1erg the man–3sg.abs-the leave
‘I saw the leaving one who is a man’
d. * Ats’x-en-Ø-lhkan [[ti xzúm-Ø-a] tseqwtsíqw]
saw-trans–3sg.abs–1erg the big–3sg.abs-the red
‘I saw the red one who is big.’

So, there is at least one grammatical environment in St’átimcets, ti-a relativisa-

tion, that refers to categories such as Noun (versus Verb and Adjective).
Although evidence for the above comes from a wealth of previous work,
the credit for tying all these threads together under a coherent categorial theo-
ry must go to the author of ‘Lexical Categories’.
Lexical categories or category-less roots? A recent analysis originating in
Halle & Marantz (1993; 1994), Marantz (1997) and Harley & Noyer (1998),
claims Noun Verb and Adjective not to be categories specified on lexical items;

© 2005. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
78 Book Reviews

hence irrelevant for narrow syntax. It argues for the existence of non-category
specific roots such as grow and destroy and for these being the only lexical ele-
ments syntactically at play. To adapt Marantz (1997) in more ‘syntactic’ terms,
roots become ‘nouns’ and ‘verbs’ (i.e. for the purposes of morphology) accord-
ing to whether they are inserted in the lexical head position of a nominal or
a verbal Extended Projection (in Grimshaw’s 1991 terms). Hence a root like
–destroy will become a noun in (10) and a verb in (11). This is so because in
(10) the root –destroy is embedded within a ‘nominal’ extended projection,
one consisting of, say, D, Num and n, and because in (11) it is embedded within
a ‘verbal’ extended projection, one consisting of, say, C, T, Aux and v.
(10) The army’s destruction of the settlement (was a humane act).
(11) The army will have destroyed the settlement (by tomorrow).
The conceptual advantages of such an account, one doing away with grammati-
cal categories in the lexicon and narrow syntax, are explored in Harley & Noyer
(1998), Embick (2000), Alexiadou (2001) and elsewhere.
Baker acknowledges that his theory runs in parallel with such a conception
of the nature of grammatical category (p. 267). In the pages that follow (pp.
268–175), he offers perhaps the most solid and coherent critique of category-
free syntax until today.
Let me summarise his arguments here.
a. Baker calls upon evidence from incorporation throughout the book to-
wards the fact that distinct categorial behaviour in syntax exists even in
the absence of “any functional superstructure dominating the functional
head” (p. 268). If category is something functional heads dominating cat-
egory-less roots are responsible for, then we would not expect any catego-
ry-specific behaviour whatsoever when no functional structure is present.
Now, a case where indeed no functional structure seems to be involved
is that of Incorporation. Nevertheless, it is not the case that anything can
incorporate into anything, as one would expect form bare roots. Actually,
the reverse seems to hold. So, although Greenlandic, Mayali and Nahuatl
allow APs to partly incorporate into verbal roots, they do not permit in-
corporation of bare adjectival ‘roots’; similarly in Quechua, Chicheŵa and
Japanese causative verbs allow full AP and NP small clause complements
but can only tolerate bare verbal roots to incorporate into them. As Baker
puts it “where there is less functional structure, we find more categorial
distinctiveness” (p. 268). Finally, incorporation into nouns is “universally
impossible” (p. 272).

© 2005. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
 Book Reviews 79

b. Using functional layers or single categories as ‘verbalisers’, ‘nominalisers’

and ‘adjectivisers’ has a more limited explanatory power than an account
where every element in syntax bears category. The reason is the follow-
ing: co-occurrence restrictions between, say Num and a noun (probably
universally) or T and a verb (in the vast majority of the world’s languages)
can be captured in a more straightforward way by taking lexical categories
to bear semantically interpretable categorial features: recall the discussion
on Num and nouns above (pp. 269–70). If, on the other hand, lexical ele-
ments are nothing but category-less roots, the impossibility of combining
particular roots with Num, T or what have you becomes a mystery (see
also Chomsky, 1970; Panagiotidis, 2004).
c. Category-less roots do not appear anywhere in syntax, unless encased in
functional structure. If such category-less elements were syntactically ac-
tive, one would actually expect them to show up where the categorially
underspecified category ‘adjective’ does. This is not what happens, though
(p. 269).
d. Certain morphological processes are rather permissive to category, seem-
ingly manipulating category-less roots, in stark contrast with comparable
syntactic processes. So, root compounding can have pretty much anything
category-wise as a first member, with a noun or a verb as its second one:
draw-bridge (V), dog-house, sky-high (N), dark-room, red-hot (A), cran-
berry, huckleberry (X). Syntactic processes like attributive modification, on
the other hand, can only be of the adjective-noun type (p. 271–2).
(Derivational) morphology and syntax: There has been a persistent impression
that Baker (1988) offers a purely syntactic recasting of inflectional morphology,
especially in the light of his Mirror Principle (Baker, 1985; see Spencer 1991 for
a critique and Brody, 1997 for an original and astute treatment of this). In its
most simplified form, this would involve head movement taking ‘stray affixes’
and literally attaching them to the left of the next head up.
Baker on pp. 281–290 of this monograph offers a detailed refutation of
the thesis that only simplex morphemes can hang from the head nodes of a
syntactic tree. He interestingly turns to derivational morphology in order to il-
lustrate this thesis and distinguishes between two types thereof: one that seems
to reflect syntactic processes from one that appears to consist a purely mor-
phological operation. He goes on the show that the ‘syntactic’ type manipulates
category specific elements, is fully productive (allomorphy notwithstanding)
and yields semantically predictable outcomes. An example, drawn from Fu,
Roeper & Borer (2001) is that of -ness/-ity: it only attaches on adjectives to yield

© 2005. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
720 Book Reviews

abstract nouns and is probably fully productive. The opposite type is of ‘non-
syntactic’ derivational morphology, which manipulates any root rather than
elements of a specific category (or previously affixed forms, already having
category), and is typically of limited productivity and idiosyncratic semantic
outcome. An example, from Fabb (1988) is -ful: it can attach on roots that may
surface as nouns (bucket-ful) or verbs (forget-ful); although it yields adjectives,
it is not productive (*water-ful) and the meaning of the derived form can be
fairly idiosyncratic. Finally, it does not attach on already derived forms (as they
bear category): *honest-y-ful.
Conclusion: I believe to have shown that Mark C. Baker’s ‘Lexical Catego-
ries: verbs, nouns and adjectives’ is an extremely important work in genera-
tive grammar as well as language typology: not only does it look into a largely
neglected (by generativists, at least) area of grammar, not only does it offer a
coherent, explanatory and falsifiable theory of part-of-speech universals, but
he also does so in a work of tremendous scope and significant depth. I hope
and believe it will usher in a new era in both the closer interaction of typology
and abstract grammatical theory and the research into grammatical category
and the nature of grammar.

References

Alexiadou, Artemis 2001. Functional structure in nominals: nominalization and ergativity.

Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Baker, Mark C. 1985. The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic In-
quiry 16: 373–415
Baker, Mark C. 1988 Incorporation: a theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Bowers, John 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 591–656
Brody, Michael. 1997. Mirror theory. Unpublished manuscript, University College
Chomsky, Noam 1970. Remarks on Nominalization. In: Jacobs, Roderick, and Rosenbaum,
Peter. (eds.) Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn &
Company. 184–221.
Croft, William 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Déchaine, Rose-Marie 1993. Predicates across categories. Unpublished PhD thesis, Univer-
sity of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Embick, David 2000. Features, syntax and categories in the Latin perfect. Linguistic Inquiry
31: 185–230
Fabb, Nigel 1988. English suffixation is constrained only by selectional restrictions. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 527–539

© 2005. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
 Book Reviews 72

Fu, J., Roeper, T. and Borer, H. 2001. the VP within process nominals: evidence from ad-
verbs and the VP anaphor do so. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 549–582
Geach, Peter 1962. Reference and Generality. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Givón, Talmy 1984. Syntax: a functional-typological introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Grimshaw, Jane 1991. Extended Projection. Unpublished manuscript, Brandeis University.
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection.
In: Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay (Eds.) The View from Building 20. Essays in Lin-
guistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 111–176.
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec 1994. Some key features of distributed morphology. MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 275–288
Harley, Heidi & Noyer, Rolf 1998. Licensing in the non-lexicalist lexicon: nominalisations,
vocabulary items and the Encyclopaedia. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32: 119–
137
Jakobsen, William 1979. Noun and verb in Nootkan. In: Efrat, Barbara (Ed.) The Victoria
Conference on northwestern languages. Victoria: British Columbia Provincial Museum.
83–155
Kester, Ellen-Petra 1996. The nature of adjectival inflection. Utrecht: OTS.
Langacker, Ronald 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Li, Yafei 1990. X0-binding and verb incorporation. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 399–426
Lobeck, Anne 1991. Phrase Structure of Ellipsis in English. In: Rothstein, Susan (ed.) Per-
spectives on phrase structure. [Syntax and Semantics 25]. San Diego: Academic Press.
81–103.
Lobeck, Anne 1995. Ellipsis: functional heads, licensing and identification. Oxford: OUP.
London.
Marantz, Alec 1997. No escape from syntax: don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy
of your own lexicon. UPenn Working Papers in Linguistics 4: 201–225
Panagiotidis, Phoevos 2002. Pronouns, clitics, and empty nouns. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Panagiotidis, Phoevos 2003. Empty Nouns. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21:
381–432
Panagiotidis, Phoevos 2004. Against category-less roots in syntax and word learning: objec-
tions to Barner and Bale (2002). Lingua.
Sleeman, Petra 1993. Noun ellipsis in French. Probus 5: 271–295
Sleeman, Petra 1996. Licensing empty nouns in French. Utrecht: OTS.
Spencer, Andrew 1991. Morphological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stowell, Tim 1981. Origins of Phrase Structure. Unpublished PhD thesis, MIT.

Reviewer`s address:
Phoevos Panagiotidis
Cyprus College
Diogenous St. 6, Engomi
PO Box 22006
1516 Nicosia
Cyprus

© 2005. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved
View publication stats