Review published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 29:1 (2005) ► pp.149167
Aissen, J.
1974Verb raising. Linguistic Inquiry 51: 325–366.Google Scholar
Baker, M.
1985The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 161: 373–415.Google Scholar
1988Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Burzio, L.
1986Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B.
1976Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1985Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
1993A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The View from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (eds.), 1–52, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1995The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G.
1999Adverbs and Functional heads: A cross-linguistics perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dik, S.
1997The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: the structure of the clause. 2nd ed., K. Hengeveld (ed.), Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Enç, M.
1986Topic switching and pronominal subject in Turkish. In Studies in Turkish Linguistics, Dan I. Slobin and Karl Zimmer (eds.), 195–209. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erguvanlı, E.
1986Pronominal versus zero representation of anaphora in Turkish. In Studies in Turkish Linguistics, Dan I. Slobin and Karl Zimmer (eds.), 206–233. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Erguvanlı-Taylan, E.
(ed) 2001The Verb in Turkish. Linguistik Aktuell. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Johanson, L.
1994Türkeitürkische Aspektotempora. In Tense systems in European languages, R. Thieroff and J. Ballweg (eds.), 247–266. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J.
1977A note on subject raising in Turkish. Linguistic Inquiry 81: 736–742.Google Scholar
1996On copular clitic forms in Turkish. In ZAS Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 61, A. Alexiadou, et al. (eds.), 96–114. Berlin: ZASGoogle Scholar
1997Turkish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2000Postpositions and adverbs: a case study in syntactic categories. In The Balance of Truth: Essays in Honor of Professor Geoffrey Lewis, Ç. Balım and C. Imber (eds.), 217–237. Istanbul: The Isis Press.Google Scholar
Lees, R. B.
1962A compact analysis for the Turkish personal morphemes. In American Studies in Altaic Linguistics, N. Poppe (ed.), 141–176. Bloomington: Idiana University.Google Scholar
1972The Turkish copula. In The verb ‘Be’ and its synonymes. J. W. M. Verhaar (ed.). 64–73. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, D. and P. Postal
1984The 1-Advancement Exclusiveness Law. In Studies in Relational Grammar 21. Perlmutter, D. and C. Rosen (eds.), 81–125. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Rapoport, T. R.
1999Structure, aspect and the predicate. Language 741: 653–677. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raposo, E.
1987Case theory and Infl-to-Comp: The inflected infinitive in European Portuguese. Linguistic Inquiry 181: 85–109.Google Scholar
Smith, C.
1997The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yavaş, F.
1980On the meaning of Tense and Aspect markers in Turkish. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Zidani-Eroğlu, L.
1997Exceptionally case marked DPs as matrix objects. Linguistic Inquiry 281: 219–230.Google Scholar