Sunday, February 22, 2026

Top Twenty Field Defining Papers for Generative Syntax

Which works define the field of generative syntax?

The following list is the set of the top twenty books, theses, book chapters and journal articles in generative syntax ordered in terms of total citations from Google Scholar. I have left out the following:

a. Works by Noam Chomsky, which have much higher citation rates than the works below.

b. Textbooks.

c. Edited books containing different authors.


1. Citations: 12,844

Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The Case for Case. In Emmon Back and Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 1-88. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

2. Citations: 10,627

Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge.

3. Citations: 10,299

Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge.

4. Citations: 10,257

Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax. Springer.

5. Citations: 10,202

Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

6. Citations: 9,250 

Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Cambridge.

7. Citations: 9,244

Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago University Press, Chicago.

8. Citations: 8,019

Abney, Steven. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Cambridge.

9. Citations: 7,912

Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

10. Citations: 7,204

Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb Movement, Universal Grammar and the Structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 366-424.

11. Citations: 6,962

Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. MIT Press, Cambridge.

12. Citations: 6,404

Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. MIT Press, Cambridge.

13. Citations: 5,821

Burzio, Luigi. Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Springer.

14. Citations: 5,792

Huang, James. 1998. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Garland publishing, New York.

15. Citations: 5,677

Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the Double Object Constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335-391.

16. Citations: 4,556

Stowell, Tim. 1981. Origins of Phrase Structure. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Cambridge.

17. Citations: 4,537

Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1994. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Sematics Interface. MIT Press, Cambridge.

18. Citations: 4,523

Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X’-Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. MIT Press, Cambridge.

19. Citations: 4,221

Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Johann Rooryck and Laurie Zaring (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon (pp. 109–137). Kluwer Academic Publishers.

20. Citations: 3,902

Perlmutter, David. 1978. Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 4, 157-189.

Thursday, February 19, 2026

Top Ten Field Defining Papers for Generative Syntax

Which works define the field of generative syntax?

The following list is the set of the top ten books, theses, book chapters and journal articles in generative syntax ordered in terms of total citations from Google Scholar. I have left out the following:

a. Works by Noam Chomsky, which have much higher citation rates than the works below.

b. Textbooks.

c. Edited books containing different authors.

d. Works in adjacent subdisciplines, such as semantics or phonology.

Summary:

I would roughly divide these into three classes:

A. Classic

Ross 1967

B. Argument Structure

Fillmore 1968, Levin 1993, Baker 1988, Grimshaw 1990

C. Cartography

Kayne 1994, Rizzi 1997, Abney 1987, Cinque 1999, Pollock 1989


1. Citations: 12,843

Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The Case for Case. In Emmon Back and Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 1-88. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

2. Citations: 10,610

Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge.

3. Citations: 10,253

Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax. Springer.

4. Citations: 10,199

Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

5. Citations: 9,244

Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Cambridge.

6. Citations: 9,242

Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago University Press, Chicago.

7. Citations: 8,018

Abney, Steven. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Cambridge.

8. Citations: 7,910

Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

9. Citations: 7,204

Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb Movement, Universal Grammar and the Structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 366-424.

10. Citations: 6,962

Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. MIT Press, Cambridge.

New York Stories: Space Market

Space Market was buzzing. Students circled the buffet scooping food into their dishes. It was 12:30pm, time for lunch. There were at least 10 customers just at the buffet alone.

The little old guy was rutting into the vegetables with his bare fingers, scraping to get one or two more pieces into his hand. He clenched his hand into a fist to hide them, but I caught the white edge of a piece of cauliflower peeking out between his thumb and forefinger. He held his fist to down his side, and when he thought nobody was looking, popped a vegetable into his mouth, chewing it with as little motion as possible. Then he shuffled down a few feet and started the same process with another one of the food trays that had been displayed in the buffet.

The man was short with a bushy grey beard framing his pink lips. He was obviously homeless, by the clothing his was wearing. But I have seen much worse, and by New York standards, he was actually in pretty good shape. Most likely he was one of the many homeless hanging out in Washington Square Park, just across the street, and had made his way over for his lunchtime routine. As he was rutting around, he had a blank expression on his face, which I now believe was part of his way of hiding his activities. The other odd detail was that he did not carry a food tray in his circuit around the buffet. So if you were willing to put two and two together, it was pretty obvious what he was up to.

At the time I was trying to fill my disposable food dish, carefully selecting my proteins, fats, fibers and carbohydrates into a well-balanced meal, which I would take to the front of the store and pay 20 dollars for. When I realized what he was up to, a great wave of nausea passed through me. I felt like I was going to throw up. But I had already filled half of the food dish, so I could not really abandon my task. Instead, I started staring at the old guy trying to get his attention.

When he looked up, our eyes locked. He did not look away, but rather stared back at me, once again with no expression on his face. I was hoping that just by staring at him, he would become dissuaded and leave, but no such luck. He seemed to be saying to me “What are you going to do about it?” The nausea just got worse and worse.

I packed my little meal, putting on a plastic lid, and bending the tinfoil to clamp down on the lid. Then I went to the front of the store to pay. As I left, I said to the cashier, with whom I had a friendly relationship, “There is a little old guy digging into the food with his fingers and eating it.” She looked exasperated and glanced to the back of the store, but did not make any move to call the manager or any other worker at the store. Because I left as quickly as possible, I am not sure how the situation played out. The typical New York response would definitely be to ignore it, hoping it would go away.

I am pretty sure that is the last time I will eat at Space Market.

Sunday, February 15, 2026

Implicit Arguments versus Implicit Predicates

Abstract: Much has been written in the syntax literature about implicit arguments. In this squib, I introduce the term ‘implicit predicate’. I define implicit predicates and argue that they are syntactically projected, exactly like Collins 2024 argues for implicit arguments.  

Keywords: implicit arguments, implicit predicates, serial verb constructions

Implicit Arguments versus Implicit Predicates


Tips on Answering Questions at a Talk

After giving an academic talk, there is usually a question period. At a conference, it can be as short as 10 minutes. At a departmental talk, it can be as long as 30 minutes. Many people, including both graduate students and faculty, find this period stressful and difficult. In this blog post, I outline some strategies for managing the question period successfully.

1. Practice makes perfect. The most important thing to realize is that answering questions is a skill (going beyond the knowledge you have of the topic), and that you can work on it. The more you give presentations at conferences and smaller workshops, and at invited talks and in the department, the better and more confident you will get. Just keep working on the skill!

2. If somebody asks a difficult question during the question period, and you do not know the answer, say “Thank you very much. I will have to think about that.” 

There is no shame in not knowing how to answer a question. Just be respectful and polite toward the person who asked the question. You might even want to bend down and write some notes on the handout, to show that you are taking the question seriously. 

3. If somebody asks a complicated multi-part question (difficult to understand and remember), say “Please, which part should I answer first? Could you break it down a bit?” The questioner will have to repeat their question in a simplified form. This process will allow you to focus on a single question.

4. If somebody asks a long complicated question outlining a complex data paradigm from a language that you are unfamiliar with, just thank the questioner, and say “That is really interesting, can you send me the data by e-mail so I can look at it more closely.”

Syntacticians are often deeply immersed in very complicated data from their favorite language, and they honestly do not understand how difficult it is for other people understand it. So without any thought, they will launch into a long tirade on some set of data, expecting you to comment on it. There is no way that you can do a decent analysis of that data (or even understand it) under the hot lights of a conference room, with 30 people looking on, and very limited time, so don’t even try. Just get the person to agree to correspond with you after the talk, and move on.

5. One of the most powerful tools is to turn the question on the questioner.

This allows you to understand the question more, and gives you time to sort out a response. For example, suppose the question is: 

Q: Can that phenomenon be handled with logophoricity?

You can then ask:

Q’: How would that work exactly? Can you please elaborate a bit?

Or you could ask:

Q’’: Why do you think logophoricity is relevant here?

There are lots and lots of such follow up questions. By asking them, you get clarification and a bit more time to answer. Once you get the hang of this, it is a very powerful tool. And it does not make you look weak. Rather it makes you look confident.

6. You may not be able to answer a question, but you may have interesting related ideas that you can speak confidently about. So you can deflect the question a tiny bit with a comment like, “I have not explored that yet, but a closely related issue is…” or “That issue is related to another that I have been thinking about…”.

7. Plant possible questions during the talk.

There are certain parts of your research that you will not have time to present in the talk. You could plant little flags here and there in the talk, encouraging people to ask questions in the question period. For example, you could say during the talk:

“If anybody wants to hear what happens with reflexives, I could address that during the question period.” 

This will prime the audience to ask questions which you have already prepared for.

8. Think ahead of time about possible questions and answers. 

You have been working on the material for a while. That is why you are giving a talk. What kinds of questions have come up before in talking with your advisor and your colleagues. You can even write down some of the most common ones, and plan out your answers to these questions. In other words, just like you give a practice talk to prepare, you can also entertain possible questions and answers ahead of time. In fact, if you give a practice talk to some linguist friends, you can have them ask a few questions just to get you going.

9. If you have the option, take minor clarificational questions during the talk, but all other questions should be reserved for the question period following the talk.

There is nothing worse than an over-zealous faculty member dominating your talk with questions concerning their own research program and how it relates to the talk you are giving. On many occasions, I have seen a question period talked ruined by this kind of person. This happens much more frequently than people are willing to acknowledge.

10. Often times, one person will insist on asking a lot of questions, taking up all the time in the question session. They ask a question, you answer it, then they ask a follow up, as if the whole question session were a discussion between the two of you. Just say the following: “Please, let’s talk later after the talk. I would like to give a few other people a chance to ask questions.” If you are polite and professional, nobody will take this as being rude (not even the questioner themselves).

11. It can also help to keep in mind why the question period is important to you, the researcher.

Here are some reasons: First, the questions asked at a talk can often give you important tips on how to deepen your analysis, bringing to light: further predictions, interesting examples, related generalizations about other languages, and important references. Second, sometimes after a talk you can strike up a great discussion with the question asker. This correspondence can lead in all kinds of interesting directions. Third, the question period is an additional way to help clarify your positions by going into the topic a little more deeply than was possible in the talk itself. 

So if you can learn to manage the question period successfully, it can be a great way to further your research objectives.

Facebook Etiquette

Welcome to my Facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/christhadcollins

I want to keep things lively and interesting and intellectual. To that end, here are a few simple ‘rules’ to keep in mind. There are no concrete consequences to violating these rules. I rarely block or unfriend people, and I almost never delete Facebook material once it is posted. I just want you to keep these guidelines in mind when you post on my page. 

1.

I love honest posts, even posts that are a little rough around the edges. But please don’t write  anything snarky (or sarcastic or abrasive) on my Facebook threads. There is already enough stress in the world, let’s avoid that here.

2.

Short and sweet. Please don’t write two-page long posts on my Facebook threads. Facebook is not a great medium for that kind of response. I prefer shorter insightful posts (e.g., one or two short paragraphs). If you have something longer to say, feel free write me an e-mail message (cc116@nyu.edu). I would be happy to correspond with you.

3.

If we disagree, that is OK. Intellectual engagement is great. And people are passionate about their ideas, which leads to a healthy dialectic. But let’s keep it courteous and friendly!

4.

Please don’t repeat some comment three or four times if you think I have not understood it. Repeating the same comment with slightly different wording and from slightly different angles is not going to make me agree with you. If I don’t respond, or if we just happen to disagree, please accept that and move on.

5.

When you post on my thread, please stay reasonably close to the original spirt of the thread. If you have another topic to discuss, you can post on your own page. You can even give the link to your thread in my thread. For example, if I start a thread about LLMs and generative syntax, do not start to post about how evil OpenAI is. That would be a different topic.

6.

Facebook is not the venue for every sort of act of communication. Please take that into account, when you decide to respond to one of my threads. There are many other ways that two people can communicate: in-person, phone, Zoom and e-mail. In some instances, one of the other modalities might be more appropriate.

7.

If you have a personal grievance (e.g., I have offended you, or I have not cited you), please do not air that grievance on Facebook. Facebook is not the venue for that sort of thing. Rather, let’s talk about it in-person or on the phone, and try to work things out privately without the whole world looking on.

Wednesday, February 11, 2026

Morphology as Syntax Workshop: Past, Present and Future

Goal: The purpose of this conference is to investigate the relationship between morphology and syntax, and in particular to investigate the extent to which morphological generalizations can be accounted for in terms of purely syntactic operations and conditions. 

MaS 6

ELTE Research Center for Linguistics, Budapest (Spring 2028)

Organizers: Marcel Den Dikken and Éva Dékány

MaS 5

University of Delaware (Spring 2027)

Organizer: Benjamin Bruening

MaS 4

Queens College and Stony Brook University (April 17, 2026)

Organizer: Francisco Ordoñez

MaS 3

UQAM (September 15-16, 2023)

Organizers: Tom Leu and Heather Newell

MaS2

UCLA (June 10-11, 2022)

Organizers: Stefan Keine, Hilda Koopman and Harold Torrence

MaS1

NYU (December 4-5, 2020)

Organizers: Chris Collins and Richard Kayne


Saturday, January 24, 2026

Being a Syntactician (Some Preliminary Posts)

I am trying to convey to a non-linguist audience what it means to be a syntactician. The goal is to write something completely non-technical that nevertheless gives the reader with absolutely no background a pretty good idea of what we do when we do syntax. I have written several blog posts on this topic already, which I list below. But I am interested in writing something more substantive. So consider these posts as a kind of scratch pad with my notes. The first and the third posts are a bit redundant.

The Personality of a Syntactician (December 24, 2025)

(https://ordinaryworkinggrammarian.blogspot.com/2025/12/the-personality-of-syntactician.html)

Thinking Syntactically (for Non-Linguists) (September 18 2025)

(https://ordinaryworkinggrammarian.blogspot.com/2025/09/thinking-syntactically.html)

You Know You are a Syntactician When (April 17, 2017)

(https://ordinaryworkinggrammarian.blogspot.com/2017/04/this-was-originally-posted-march-31.html)

What Kind of Syntactician are You? (March 25, 2017)

(https://ordinaryworkinggrammarian.blogspot.com/2017/03/what-kind-of-syntactician-are-you.html)




Friday, January 23, 2026

Some Challenging Issues in Teaching Graduate Level Syntax

1. Grad: Does X (a hypothesis) really work? My professor as an undergrad said it does not. I agree with them.

Implication: Everything I learned at previously as an undergraduate (or Masters student) needs to be rigorously and systematically disproven before I will accept anything else.

Response: I call this phenomenon ‘imprinting’. Whatever theory a student first learns, they take that is the right theory. As a graduate student, you should consider what you have already learned to be a preliminary step, not the final word set in stone. It is likely that most things that you have learned will need to be revised or replaced in some way. Try to have an open mind!

2. Grad: I do not agree with those acceptability judgments. So my English is not characterized by the relevant principle. 

Implication: If I do not agree with the data, I am not going to read any papers on the subject, or look into it. And if you bring up that principle again, I will not fail to remind you that my judgments do not conform to it. In my opinion, it is a total waste of time.

Response: Acceptability judgements are complicated. Even if you disagree with them, it is worthwhile finding out what the range of judgments is, and how that range can be accounted for. Nowadays, it is also possible to explore acceptability judgements experimentally.

3. Grad: Is X a consensus point of view? How many people adopt it?

Implication: Please, I just want to know the most popular theory, the one most people accept. That is the one I want to use to write my paper, so I can get abstracts accepted at conferences.

Response: Consensus has nothing to do with truth. If society in general believes the sun revolves around the earth, that does not thereby make it true. For many issues (e.g., obligatory control, head movement, case) there are several approaches, and understanding those approaches is an important part of learning the subject matter, and making scientific progress on the issues.

4. Grad: Do we really need syntax to explain X? It could just be semantics, right?

Implication: Even without formulating any alternative analysis, we should just take it as a null hypothesis that an explanation not involving any syntactic principle is preferable. 

Response: Neither a syntactic nor semantic analysis can be taken as the null hypothesis. Every hypothesis must be argued for with the same rigor. Disentangling alternative analyses can be quite difficult, and takes a lot of effort.

5. Grad: I thought of an interesting idea, but I already see a paper about that topic published in LI. Oh well, somebody has beaten me to it. I will look for a different topic.

Implication: What makes an idea interesting to me is that I thought of it first. If somebody else has also thought of it, I am no longer interested.

Response: Doing research is engaging in a process involving lots of different people looking at topics from different angles. Your contribution to a particular topic might be completely different from what is already out there. You should try to develop your own ideas, even if there are other papers published on the topic.

6. Grad: I just thought of some interesting data. Let me search the internet intensely for a few days (or even weeks) to see if anything interesting has been written on it.

Implication: I need to find a model in the syntax literature, and apply that to my data. That is the way to do research.

Response: You should get used to doing these things on your own, without always having the crutch of somebody else’s analysis. Sit down in front of a blank piece of paper, and write! Of course, at some step in the process of doing research you need to add references, and a discussion of other approaches.

Tuesday, January 20, 2026

Inversion Seminar: The Scope of Inversion in English (Spring 2026)

Inversion Seminar

January 20th, 2026

Lecture 1:

I. Overview of Inversion in English

II. Analyses of Quotative Inversion

III. Presentatives as Inversion (contra Wood and Zanuttini 2023)


Friday, January 16, 2026

Where are they now? (written for Peace Corps Togo)

Where Are They Now?

Chris Collins, January 14, 2026

1. Where did you serve as a Peace Corps Volunteer?

I served as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Togo from 1985 to 1987. I taught math at the Lycée level, for one year in Notsé and then for a second year in Danyi-Apéyémé.

2. What are you doing now (professionally or personally)?

I am professor of linguistics at New York University. My research interests include linguistic fieldwork in Africa. In particular, I study Ewe, a language spoken in Ghana, Togo and Benin.

3. How did your Peace Corps Togo experience prepare you for success in your current role or life path? 

My Peace Corps experience laid the foundation for my career as a linguist doing fieldwork in Africa. I learned to speak Ewe, which I have continued working on for my whole career.

If you are curious, here is a picture of my cohort in the Peace Corps:

https://ordinaryworkinggrammarian.blogspot.com/2021/04/peace-corps-togo-1985.html

Here is a summary of my career:

https://ordinaryworkinggrammarian.blogspot.com/2024/11/biographical-notes-technology-review.html#more

Here are some notes on my recent trip to Togo (summer 2025):

https://ordinaryworkinggrammarian.blogspot.com/2025/06/togo-diary-june-july-2025.html#more

4. What is one skill or lesson from service that you still use today?

The Peace Corps taught me basic life skills about working in a foreign country and thinking outside of the box in order to get things done. I also learned to appreciate the people of Togo who showed me so much support, even when their lives were materially much more difficult than mine.

Some other smaller skills are listed here:

https://ordinaryworkinggrammarian.blogspot.com/2019/10/ten-things-i-learned-in-peace-corps.html

5. Any advice you’d give to current or future Volunteers?

Your time in Togo might be the most interesting and intense period in your entire life. Keep a journal, and send regular letters home. You will love to look back at them later. 

Syllabus: Inversion Seminar, Spring 2026 (near final draft)

Course Description

Collins and Branigan 1997 (see also Collins 1997) inaugurated the study of quotative inversion into generative syntax. In the interim, there have been many studies engaging with various aspects of their analysis in different languages, including Alexiadou and Anagnostopolou 2001, 2007, Branigan 2011, Bruening 2016, Gärtner and Gyuris 2014, Matos 2013, Murphy 2022, Richards 2010, Suñer 2000, Storment 2024, 2025a, de Vries 2006, amongst others.

This course will review the existing literature on quotative inversion, and explore a new analysis in the framework of Collins 2024 (‘Principles of Argument Structure’ MIT Press, Cambridge) taking into account the insights of previous work.

Along the way, we will discuss the relation of quotative inversion to other inversion constructions. The choice of topics will depend on the interests of the participants.  Some possible topics include (but are not limited to): predicate inversion in copular constructions, subject-object inversion in Bantu, locative inversion in Bantu, French stylistic inversion, presentatives (“Here comes John!”), Austronesian VSO and VOS word order, Austronesian voice systems, Heavy XP Shift, there-expletive constructions, the dative alternation, and related inversion phenomena from a cross-linguistic perspective.

Seminar Syllabus