Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 The Comparative Syntactic Enterprise
- Part I Comparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
- Part II Comparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
- Part III Comparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
- Part IV Comparative Syntax: Interfaces
- Index
- References
Part III - Comparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2026
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 The Comparative Syntactic Enterprise
- Part I Comparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
- Part II Comparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
- Part III Comparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
- Part IV Comparative Syntax: Interfaces
- Index
- References
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax , pp. 611 - 866Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
References
Anagnostopoulou, E. 2003. The Syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from Clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, E. 2005. Strong and weak person restrictions: A feature checking analysis. In Heggie, L. and Ordóñez, F. (eds.), Clitic and Affix Combinations [Linguistics Today 74], 199–235. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, S. R. 1976. On the notion of subject in ergative languages. In Li, C. N. (ed.), Subject and Topic, 1–23. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Aoun, J., Benmamoun, E., and Sportiche, D.. 1994. Agreement, word order, and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic. Linguistic Inquiry 25(2): 195–220.Google Scholar
Arregi, K., and Hanink, E. A.. 2022. Switch reference as index agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 40(3): 651–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babby, L. 1987. Case, prequantifiers, and discontinuous agreement in Russian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5(1): 91–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baier, N. 2015. Adjective agreement in Noon: Evidence for a split theory of noun-modifier concord. In Bui, T. and Özyıldız, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the Forty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS), vol. 1. 67–80. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Baker, M. C. 2008. The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. C. 2011. When agreement is for number and gender but not person. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(4): 875–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. C. 2015. Case: Its Principles and Its Parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. C., and Camargo Souza, L.. 2020. Agree without agreement: Switch- reference and reflexive voice in two Panoan languages. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 38(4): 1053–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. C., and Kramer, R.. 2018. Doubled clitics are pronouns: Amharic objects (and beyond). Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 36(4): 1035–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. C., and Vinokurova, N.. 2010. Two modalities of case assignment: Case in Sakha. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28(3): 593–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béjar, S., and Rezac, M.. 2003. Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects. In Pérez-Leroux, A. T. and Roberge, Y. (eds.), Romance Linguistics: Theory and Acquisition [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 244], 49–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béjar, S., and Rezac, M.. 2009. Cyclic Agree. Linguistic Inquiry 40(1): 35–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, R. 2005. Long distance agreement in Hindi-Urdu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23(4): 757–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, R., and Keine, S.. 2017. Long-distance agreement. In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. C. (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd ed., vol. IV, 2291–2321. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Bianchi, V. 2006. On the syntax of personal arguments. Lingua 116(12): 2023–2067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjorkman, B. M., and Zeijlstra, H.. 2019. Checking up on (φ-)Agree. Linguistic Inquiry 50(3): 527–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D. 2008. Where’s phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In Harbour, D., Adger, D., and Béjar, S. (eds.), Phi-Theory: Phi Features Across Interfaces and Modules, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D. 2017. In Defense of a Universal: A Brief Note on Case, Agreement, and Differential Object Marking. Ms., University of Connecticut and Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Bock, K., and Miller, C. A.. 1991. Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology 23(1): 45–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonet, E. 1991. Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance Languages. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2007. Agree, phases, and intervention effects. Linguistic Analysis 33(1–2): 54–96.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2009. Unifying first and last conjunct agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 27(3): 455–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branigan, P., and MacKenzie, M.. 2002. Altruism, Ā-movement, and object agreement in Innu-aimûn. Linguistic Inquiry 33(3): 385–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camacho, J. 2010. On case concord: The syntax of switch-reference clauses. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28(2): 239–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstens, V. 2000. Concord in minimalist theory. Linguistic Inquiry 31(2): 319–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstens, V. 2001. Multiple agreement and case deletion: Against ϕ-incompleteness. Syntax 4(3): 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstens, V. 2011. Hyperactivity and hyperagreement in Bantu. Lingua 121(5): 721–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstens, V. 2016. Delayed valuation: A reanalysis of “upwards” complementizer agreement and the mechanics of Case. Syntax 19(1): 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstens, V., and Diercks, M.. 2013. Agreeing how? Implications for theories of agreement and locality. Linguistic Inquiry 44(2): 179–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures in Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., and Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Citko, B. 2004. Agreement asymmetries in coordinate structures. In Arnaudova, O., Browne, W., Rivero, M. L., and Stojanović, D. (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics #12: The Ottawa Meeting 2003, 91–108. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Clem, E. 2022. Accounting for parallels between inverse marking and the PCC. In Bakay, Ö., Pratley, B., Neu, E., and Deal, P. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifty-Second Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS), vol. 1, 163–176. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Clem, E. 2023. Cyclic expansion in Agree: Maximal projections as probes. Linguistic Inquiry 54(1): 39–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coon, J. 2017. Little-v0 agreement and templatic morphology in Ch’ol. Syntax 20(2): 101–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coon, J., and Keine, S.. 2021. Feature gluttony. Linguistic Inquiry 52(4): 655–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, G. G. 1983. Hierarchies, Targets and Controllers: Agreement Patterns in Slavic. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, R., and Roberts, I.. 2008. Movement and agreement in Italian past participles and defective phases. Linguistic Inquiry 39(3): 477–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danon, G. 2011. Agreement and DP-internal feature distribution. Syntax 14(4): 297–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deal, A. R. 2015. Interaction and satisfaction in ϕ-Agreement. In Bui, T. and Özyıldız, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the Forty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS), vol. 1, 179–192. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Deal, A. R. 2022. Negative concord as downward Agree. In (Bakay, Ö., Pratley, B., Neu, E., and Deal, P. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifty-Second Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS), vol. 1., 235–244. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Deal, A. R. 2024. Interaction, satisfaction, and the PCC. Linguistic Inquiry 55(1): 39–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deal, A. R. In press. Current models of Agree. In Crippen, J., Déchaine, R.-M., and Keupdjio, H. (eds.), Move and Agree: Towards a Formal Typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dékány, É., and Hegedűs, V.. 2021. Postpositions: Formal and semantic classification. In É. Kiss, K. and Hegedűs, V. (eds.), Syntax of Hungarian: Postpositions and Postpositional Phrases, 11–191. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Delsing, L.-O. 1993. The Internal Structure of Noun Phrases in the Scandinavian Languages. PhD thesis, University of Lund.Google Scholar
den Dikken, M. 2001. “Pluringulars”, pronouns and quirky agreement. The Linguistic Review 18(1): 19–41.Google Scholar
den Dikken, M. 2019. The attractions of agreement: Why person is different. Frontiers in Psychology 10: 978.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deo, A., and Sharma, D.. 2006. Typological variation in the ergative morphology of Indo-Aryan languages. Linguistic Typology 10(3): 369–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diercks, M. 2013. Indirect Agree in Lubukusu complementizer agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31(2): 357–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, K. 2012. Patterns of agreement with coordinate noun phrases in Hungarian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30(4): 1027–1060.Google Scholar
Erelt, M. 1999. Agreement in Estonian. In Erelt, M. (ed.), Estonian: Typological Studies III, 7–46. Tartu: Tartu University Press.Google Scholar
Fassi Fehri, A. 1988. Agreement in Arabic, binding and coherence. In Barlow, M. and Ferguson, C. A. (eds.), Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions, 107–158. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Flores Nájera, L. 2019. La gramática de la cláusula simple en el Náhuatl de Tlaxcala. PhD thesis, CIESAS, Mexico City.Google Scholar
Foley, S., and Toosarvandani, M.. 2022. Extending the Person-Case Constraint to gender: Agreement, locality, and the syntax of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 53(1): 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, S., Kalivoda, N., and Toosarvandani, M.. In press. Gender–Case constraints in Zapotec. In press in Proceedings of Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages of the Americas (WSCLA) 22.Google Scholar
Franck, J., Lassi, G., Frauenfelder, U. H., and Rizzi, L.. 2006. Agreement and movement: A syntactic analysis of attraction. Cognition 101(1): 173–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franck, J., Mirdamadi, F., and Kahnemuyipour, A.. 2020. Object attraction and the role of structural hierarchy: Evidence from Persian. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5(1): 27. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.804.Google Scholar
Galloway, B. 1993. A Grammar of Upriver Halkomelem. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Gilligan, G. M. 1987. A Cross-Linguistic Approach to the pro-Drop Parameter. PhD thesis, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Giusti, G. 2008. Agreement and concord in nominal expressions. In de Cat, C. and Demuth, K. (eds.), The Bantu-Romance Connection: A Comparative Investigation of Verbal Agreement, DPs, and Information Structure, 201–237. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grabovac, A. 2022. Maximizing the Concord Domain: Concord as Spellout in Slavic. PhD thesis, University College London.Google Scholar
Halle, M., and Marantz, A.. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J.. (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays on Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halpert, C. 2019. Raising, unphased. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37(1): 123–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammerly, C. 2020. Person-Based Prominence in Ojibwe. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Hammerly, C., Staub, A., and Dillon, B.. 2019. The grammaticality asymmetry in agreement attraction reflects response bias: Experimental and modeling evidence. Cognitive Psychology 110 70–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harley, H. 2013. Feature matching and case/number dissociation in Hiaki. Revista Linguística 9(1): 1–9.Google Scholar
Harley, H., and Ritter, E.. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78(3): 482–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2004. Explaining the ditransitive person-role constraint: A usage-based approach. Constructions 1: 1–71.Google Scholar
Ingason, A. K., and Sigurðsson, E. F.. 2017. The interaction of adjectival structure, concord, and affixation. In Lamont, A. and Tetzloff, K. (eds.), Proceedings of the Forty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS), vol. 2, 89–98. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Jäger, L. A., Engelmann, F., and Vasishth, S.. 2017. Similarity-based interference in sentence comprehension: Literature review and Bayesian meta-analysis. Journal of Memory and Language 94(1): 316–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 1989. Facets of Romance past participle agreement. In Benincà, P. (ed.), Dialect Variation and the Theory of Grammar, 85–104. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopman, H. 1992. On the absence of case chains in Bambara. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 10(4): 555–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopman, H. 2006. Agreement configurations: In defense of “Spec Head”. In Boeckx, C. (ed.), Agreement Systems, 159–199. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopman, H., and Sportiche, D.. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua 85(2–3): 211–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, R. 2010. The Amharic definite marker and the syntax–morphology interface. Syntax 13(3): 196–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, R. 2014. Clitic doubling or object agreement: The view from Amharic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32(2): 593–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, R. 2015. The Morphosyntax of Gender: Evidence from Amharic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laka, I. 1993. The structure of inflection: A case study in X0 syntax. In Hualde, J. I. and de Urbina, J. O. (eds.), Generative Studies in Basque Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 105], 21–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 2016. DP-internal semantic agreement: A configurational analysis. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34(3): 975–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, C. 1982. Universal and typological aspects of agreement. In Seiler, H. and Stachowiak, F. J. (eds.), Apprehension: Das sprachliche Erfassen von Gegenständen, vol. 2, 201–267. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Liddell, S. K. 2003. Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D., and Meier, R. P.. 2011. On the linguistic status of “agreement” in sign languages. Theoretical Linguistics 37(3–4): 95–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahajan, A. 1989. Agreement and agreement phrases. In Laka, I. and Mahajan, A. (eds.), Functional Heads and Clause Structure, 217–252. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Mahowald, K., Jurafsky, D., and Norris, M.. 2021. Concord begets concord: A Bayesian model of nominal concord typology. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 6(1): 541–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, A. 1991. Case and licensing. In Westphal, G., Ao, B., and Chae, H.-R. (eds.), Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, 234–253. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Marušič, F., Nevins, A., and Badecker, W.. 2015. The grammars of conjunction agreement in Slovenian. Syntax 18(1): 39–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matasović, R. 2018. An Areal Typology of Agreement Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matushansky, O. 2008. A case study of predication. In Marušič, F. and Žaucer, R. (eds.), Studies in Formal Slavic Linguistics: Contributions from Formal Description of Slavic Languages 6.5, 213–239. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
McFadden, T., and Sundaresan, S.. 2021. Unifying species of C-Agreement. In Farinella, A. and Hill, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifty-First Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS), vol. 2, 91–100. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Meier, R. P. 1982. Icons, Analogues and Morphemes: The Acquisition of Verb Agreement in ASL. PhD thesis, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Meir, I. 1998. Thematic Structure and Verb Agreement in Israeli Sign Language. PhD thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Meir, I., Padden, C. A., Aronoff, M., and Sandler, W.. 2007. Body as subject. Journal of Linguistics 43(3): 531–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, E. A. 1974. Object–verb agreement. Working Papers on Language Universals 15: 25–140.Google Scholar
Morgan, G., Barrière, I., and Woll, B.. 2006. The influence of typology and modality on the acquisition of verb agreement morphology in British Sign Language. First Language 26(1): 19–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevins, A. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25(2): 273–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevins, A. 2011. Multiple agree with clitics: Person complementarity vs. omnivorous number. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(4): 939–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordlinger, R. 1998. A Grammar of Wambaya, Northern Territory (Australia). Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Norris, M. 2014. A Theory of Nominal Concord. PhD thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Norris, M. 2017. Description and analyses of nominal concord (Parts I–II). Language and Linguistics Compass 11(11): e12266–e12267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, M. 2018. Unmarked case in Estonian nominals. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 36(2): 523–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, M. 2019. A typological perspective on nominal concord. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 4(12): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, M. In press. Nominal inflection in Distributed Morphology. To appear in Alexiadou, A., Kramer, R., Marantz, A., and Oltra-Massuet, I. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Distributed Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ormazabal, J., and Romero, J.. 2007. The object agreement constraint. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25(2): 315–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozarkar, R. 2020. A special case of long distance agreement in Marathi. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5(1): 93. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.698.Google Scholar
Padden, C. A. 1983. Interaction of Morphology and Syntax in American Sign Language. PhD thesis, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Patel, P. 2006. Split Agreement and Ergativity in Kutchi. Ms., University College London.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. 2013. Russian Case Morphology and the Syntactic Categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfau, R., Salzmann, M., and Steinbach, M.. 2018. The syntax of sign language agreement: Common ingredients, but unusual recipe. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 107. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.511.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2016. Agreement in Archi from a Minimalist perspective. In Bond, O., Corbett, G., Chumakina, M., and Brown, D. (eds.), Archi: Complexities of Agreement in a Cross-Theoretical Perspective, 184–232. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, M., and Potsdam, E.. 2001. Long-distance agreement and topic in Tsez. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19(3): 583–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, M., and Preminger, O.. 2019. The Agreement Theta Generalization. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1): 102. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.936.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M., Radkevich, N., and Chumakina, M.. 2017. Agreement between arguments? Not really. In D’Alessandro, R., Franco, I., and Á. Gallego, J. (eds.), The Verbal Domain [Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 64], 49–84. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Preminger, O. 2009. Breaking agreements: Distinguishing agreement and clitic doubling by their failures. Linguistic Inquiry 40(4): 619–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preminger, O. 2011. Asymmetries between person and number in syntax: A commentary on Baker’s SCOPA. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(4): 917–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preminger, O. 2013. That’s not how you agree: A reply to Zeijlstra. The Linguistic Review 30(3): 491–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preminger, O. 2019. What the PCC tells us about “abstract” agreement, head movement, and locality. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1): 13. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.315.Google Scholar
Privizentseva, M. 2023. Nominal ellipsis reveals concord in Moksha Mordvin. Syntax 26(4): 355–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puškar, Z. 2018. Interactions of gender and number agreement: Evidence from Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian. Syntax 21(3): 275–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raposo, E. 1987. Case theory and Infl-to-Comp: The inflected infinitive in European Portuguese. Linguistic Inquiry 18(1): 85–109.Google Scholar
Riedel, K. 2009. The Syntax of Object Marking in Sambaa: A Comparative Bantu Perspective. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University [LOT Dissertations].Google Scholar
Rudnev, P. 2020. Agreeing adpositions in Avar and the directionality-of-valuation debate. Linguistic Inquiry 51(4): 829–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoorlemmer, E. 2014. Cross-linguistic variation in agreement on Germanic predicate adjectives. In Sleeman, P., Van de Velde, F., and Perridon, H. (eds.), Adjectives in Germanic and Romance [Linguistics Today 212], 263–278. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuit, J. 2013. Typological Aspects of Inuit Sign Language. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scida, E. E. 2004. The Inflected Infinitive in Romance Languages. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sichel, I., and Toosarvandani, M.. In press. The featural life of nominals. Linguistic Inquiry.Google Scholar
Siewierska, A. 2013. Alignment of verbal person marking. In Dryer, M. S. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar
Sportiche, D. 1998. Partitions and Atoms of Clause Structure: Subjects, Agreement, Case and Clitics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stegovec, A. 2017. Between you and me: Two crosslinguistic generalizations on person restrictions. In Kaplan, A., Kaplan, A., McCarvel, M. K., and Rubin, E. J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 34th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 498–508. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Stegovec, A. 2020. Taking case out of the Person–Case Constraint. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 38(1): 261–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, P. 1994. The structural location of the attributive adjective. In Duncan, E., Farkas, D., and Spaelti, P. (eds.), Proceedings of the 12th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 438–454. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. 1994. The noun phrase. In Kiefer, F. and É Kiss, K. (eds.), The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian [Syntax and Semantics 27], 179–274. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terrill, A. 1999. A Grammar of Lavukaleve: A Papuan Language of the Solomon Islands. PhD thesis, The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Toosarvandani, M., and van Urk, C.. 2014. The syntax of nominal concord: What ezafe in Zazaki shows us. In Huang, H.-L., Poole, E., and Rysling, A.. (eds.), Proceedings of the Forty-Third Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS), vol. 2, 209–220. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
van Koppen, M. 2005. One Probe – Two Goals: Aspects of Agreement in Dutch Dialects. PhD thesis, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Wagers, M. W., Lau, E. F., and Phillips, C.. 2009. Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language 61(2): 206–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, S., and Zlatić, L.. 2003. The Many Faces of Agreement. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, M. 2008. Person hierarchy effects without a person hierarchy. In D’Alessandro, R., Fischer, S., and Hrafnbjargarson, G. H. (eds.), Agreement Restrictions, 281–313. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolford, E. 2000. Ergative agreement systems. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 10 157–191.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. 2012a. Parasitic participles in Germanic: Evidence for the theory of verb clusters. Taal en Tongval 64(1): 129–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. 2012b. The syntax of valuation in auxiliary-participle constructions. In Choi, J., Hogue, E. A., Punske, J., Tat, D., Schertz, J., and Trueman, A. (eds.), Coyote Working Papers: Proceedings of the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 154–162. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. 2014. The Merge condition: A syntactic approach to selection. In Kosta, P., Franks, S. L., Radeva-Bork, T., and Schürcks, L. (eds.), Minimalism and Beyond: Radicalizing the Interfaces, 130–166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yip, M., Maling, J., and Jackendoff, R.. 1987. Case in tiers. Language 63(2): 217–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, M. 2021. Diagnosing object agreement vs. clitic doubling: An Inuit case study. Linguistic Inquiry 52(1): 153–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeijlstra, H. 2004. Sentential Negation and Negative Concord. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, H. 2008. Negative Concord Is Syntactic Agreement. Ms., University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, H. 2012. There is only one way to Agree. The Linguistic Review 29(3): 491–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L., and Pancheva, R.. 2017. A formal characterization of person-based alignment: The case of Paraguayan Guaraní. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 35(4): 1161–1204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Arregi, K., and Pietraszko, A.. 2021. The ups and downs of head displacement. Linguistic Inquiry 52( 2): 241–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical-Function Changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. C. 1996. The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. C., Johnson, K., and Roberts, I.. 1989. Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 219–251.Google Scholar
Baltin, M. 2002. Movement to the higher V is remnant movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 653–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentzen, C. 2007. Order and Structure in Embedded Clauses in Northern Norwegian. PhD dissertation, CASTL, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
den Besten, H., and Webelhuth, G. 1990. Stranding. In Grewendorf, G. and Sternefeld, W. (eds.), Scrambling and Barriers, 77–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C., and Stjepanović, S.. 2001. Heading towards PF. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 345–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calabrese, A. 2015. Irregular morphology and athematic verbs in Italo-Romance. Isogloss 17: 69–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calabrese, A., and Roberts, I.. In progress. The Structure of the French Verb. Ms., Universities of Cambridge and Connecticut.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A., and Starke, M.. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency. In van Riemsdijk, H. (ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe, 145–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Carnie, A., Harley, H., and Dooley, S. (eds.). 2005. Verb First. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, S. and Kiparsky, P. (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 232–286. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1994. Bare phrase structure. In MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2015. Problems of projection: Extensions. In Di Domenico, E., Hamann, C., and Matteini, S. (eds.), Structures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour of Adriana Belletti, 1–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 2005. Deriving Greenberg’s Universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 315–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clemens, L., and Coon, J.. 2018. Deriving verb-initial word order in Mayan. Language 94: 237–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donati, C. 2006. On Wh-head movement. In Cheng, L. and Corver, N. (eds.), Wh-Movement: Moving On, 21–46. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Embick, D., and Noyer, R.. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 555–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harizanov, B., and Gribanova, V.. 2019. Whither head-movement? Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37: 461–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartman, J. 2011. The semantic uniformity of traces: Evidence from ellipsis parallelism. Linguistic Inquiry 42(3): 367–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, A., and Platzack, C.. 1995. The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallulli, D. 1997. Optional verb movement: Albanian imperatives. In Bruening, B. (ed.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 31, 225–235. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kallulli, D., and Roberts, I.. 2023. Head Movement in Imperatives in Romance and Elsewhere: Some Theoretical Consequences. Talk given at the 50th Romance Linguistics Seminar, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 2000. Parameters and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R., and Pollock, J.-Y.. 2001. New thoughts on stylistic inversion. In Hilk, A. and Pollock, J.-Y. (eds.), Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, 107–162. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koizumi, M. 1993. Object agreement phrases and the split-VP hypothesis. In Bobaljik, J. and Phillips, C. (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers on Case and Agreement I. Cambridge, MA: Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT.Google Scholar
Koopman, H. 1984. The Syntax of Verb-Movement: From Verb Movement Rules in the Kru Languages to Universal Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Koopman, H., and Szabolcsi, A.. 2000. Verbal Complexes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, H. 1981. Restricting the theory of transformations. In Hornstein, N. and Lightfoot, D. (eds.), Explanation in Linguistics, 152–173. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. 1995. A note on pseudogapping. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 27: Papers in Minimalist Syntax, 143–163. Reprinted with minor corrections in H. Lasnik 1999. Minimalist Analysis, 151–174. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lechner, W. 2005. Interpretive Effects of Head-Movement. Ms., University of Tübingen (lingBuzz/000178).Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. 1994. Proper names and the theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 609–665.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. 2008. Reference to individuals, person, and the variety of mapping parameters. In Klinge, A. and Müller, H. (eds.), Essays on Nominal Determination: From Morphology to Discourse Management, 189–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahajan, A. 2003. Syntax at Sunset 3: Head movement and syntactic theory. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 10.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 1988. Clitics, morphological merger and the mapping to phonological structure. In Hammond, M. and Noonan, M. (eds.), Theoretical Morphology, 253–270. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massam, D. 2000. VSO and VOS: Aspects of Niuean word order. In Carnie, A. and Guilfoyle, E. (eds.), The Syntax of Verb-Initial Languages, 97–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massam, D. 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19: 153–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massam, D., and Smallwood, C.. 1997. Essential features of predication in Niuean and English. In Kusumoto, K. (ed.), Proceedings of NELS 27, 236–272. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Matushansky, O. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 69–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matushansky, O. 2011. Review of Roberts 2010. Journal of Linguistics 47: 538–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, J. 1996. The scope of verb-movement in Irish. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 14: 47–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, J. 2017. Ellipsis, polarity, and the cartography of verb-initial orders in Irish. In Aboh, E., Haeberli, E., Puskás, G., and Schönenberger, M. (eds.), Elements of Comparative Syntax: Theory and Description, 99–151. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meelen, M., and Roberts, I.. In progress. Spec-to-Head Reanalysis and Labelling in the History of Welsh. Ms., University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Moro, A., and Roberts, I.. 2022. Generalised Dynamic Antisymmetry. Ms., University of Cambridge and IUSS Pavia.Google Scholar
Müller, G. 2004. Verb-second as vP-first. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 7: 139–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muysken, P. 1982. Parametrizing the notion “head”. Journal of Linguistic Research 2: 57–75.Google Scholar
Oda, H. 2021. A More Fine-Grained Distinction of NP/DP-Languages and Parameters in Minimalism. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Poletto, C., and Pollock, J.-Y.. 2004. On the left periphery of some Romance Wh-Questions. In Rizzi, L. (ed.), The Structure of IP and CP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 2, 251–296. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. 2006. Subject clitics and complex inversion. In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, vol. IV, 601–659. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y., Poletto, C., and Munaro, N.. 2003. Eppur si muove! On comparing French, Portuguese and Bellunese Wh-movement. In Pica, P. (ed.), Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 147–180. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rackowski, A., and Travis, L.. 2000. V-initial languages: X or XP movement and adverbial placement. In Carnie, A. and Guilfoyle, E. (eds.), The Syntax of Verb-Initial Languages, 117–142. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raposo, E. P. 1987. Case theory and Infl-to-Comp: The inflected infinitive in European Portuguese. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 85–109.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1996. Residual verb second and the wh-criterion. In Belletti, A. and Rizzi, L. (eds.), Parameters and Functional Heads, 63–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2013. Locality. Lingua 130: 169–96. [Special issue, Syntax and Cognition: Core Ideas and Results in Syntax, ed. Luigi Rizzi.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2018. Intervention effects in grammar and language acquisition. Probus 30: 339–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L., and Roberts, I.. 1989. Complex inversion in French. Probus 1: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 2000. Head movement. In Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.), Handbook of Syntactic Theory, 113–147. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2005. Principles and Parameters in a VSO Language: A Case Study in Welsh. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 2010. Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation and Verb-Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 2019. Parameter Hierarchies and Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schifano, N. 2018. Verb Movement in Romance: A Comparative Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shlonsky, U. 2004. Enclisis and proclisis. In Rizzi, L. (ed.), The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 2: The Structure of CP and IP, 329–354. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travis, L. 1984. Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 1995. Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiklund, A.-L., Hrafnbjargarson, G. H., Bentzen, K., and Hróarsdóttir, T.. 2007. Rethinking Scandinavian verb movement. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 10: 203–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwart, J.-W. 1997. Morphosyntax of Verb Movement: A Minimalist Approach to the Syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Alboiu, G. 2007. Moving forward with Romanian backward control and raising. In Davies, W. D. and Dubinsky, S. (eds.), New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising, 187–211. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alboiu, G., and Hill, V.. 2016. Evidentiality and raising to object as A′-movement: A Romanian case study. Syntax 19(3): 256–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., Iordachioaia, G., and Marchis, M.. 2010. No objections to backward control. In Hornstein, and Polinsky, (eds.), 89–118.Google Scholar
Allotey, D. 2021. Overt pronouns of infinitival predicates of Gã. Western Papers in Linguistics 4(1): 1–47.Google Scholar
Arka, I. W. 2014a. Computational implementation of crossed control structures in Indonesian. In Sudipa, I. and Primahadi-Wijaya, G. (eds.), Cahaya Bahasa: A Festschrift in Honour of Prof. Sutjaja, 21–27. Bali: Swasta Nulus.Google Scholar
Arka, I. W. 2014b. Double and backward control in Indonesian: An LFG analysis. In Butt, M. and Holloway King, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG14 Conference. Stanford, CA: CLSI Publications.Google Scholar
Baker, M., Johnson, K., and Roberts, I.. 1989. Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry 20(2): 219–251.Google Scholar
Baker, M. C. 2008. The Syntax of Agreement and Concord [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 115]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. C. 2012. On the relationship of object agreement and accusative case: Evidence from Amharic. Linguistic Inquiry 43(1): 255–274. https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. C., and Vinokurova, N.. 2010. Two modalities of case assignment: Case in Sakha. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28(3): 593–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-010-9105-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bárány, A., and Sheehan, M.. 2024. Challenges for dependent case. In Sevdali, C., Mertyris, D., and Anagnostopoulou, E. (eds.), The Place of Case in Grammar, 93–126. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbosa, P. 2018. Controlled overt pronouns as specificational predicates. In Santos, A. L. and Gonçalves, A. (eds.), Complement Clauses in Portuguese: Syntax and Acquisition [Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 17], 129–186. https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.17.05bar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, M. 2019. Indonesian crossed control: Expanding the typology of restructuring. In Proceedings of the 36th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 61–70.Google Scholar
Bittner, M., and Hale, K.. 1996. The structural determination of case and agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 27(1): 1–68.Google Scholar
Bjorkman, B. M., and Zeijlstra, H.. 2019. Checking up on (φ-)Agree. Linguistic Inquiry 50(3): 527–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D. 2008. Where’s phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In Harbour, D., Adger, D., and Béjar, S. (eds.), Phi-Theory: Phi Features across Interfaces and Modules, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D., and Landau, I.. 2009. Icelandic control is not A-movement: The case from case. Linguistic Inquiry 40(1): 113–132. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.1.113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C., Hornstein, N., and Nunes, J.. 2010. Control as Movement [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 126]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burzio, L. 1986. Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach, vol. 1. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butt, M. 2008. Case in Lexical-Functional Grammar. In Malchukov, A. and Spencer, A. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Case, 59–71. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Caha, P. To appear. Nanosyntax: Some key features. In Alexiadou, A., Kramer, R., Marantz, A., and Oltra-Massuet, I. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Distributed Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carstens, V. 2011. Hyperactivity and hyperagreement in Bantu. Lingua 121(5): 721–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstens, V., and Diercks, M.. 2009. Parameterizing case and activity: Hyper-raising in Bantu. Linguistics Publications (MU).Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., and Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 81–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2008. On phases. In Freidin, R., Otero, C. P., Zubizarreta, M. L., and Keyser, S. J. (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., and Lasnik, H.. 1993. The theory of principles and parameters. In Jacobs, J., von Stechow, A., Sternefeld, W., and Vennemann, T. (eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, 506–569. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colley, J., and Privoznov, D.. 2020. On the topic of subjects: Composite probes in Khanty. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS). Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Collins, C. 2005. A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8(2): 81–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2005.00076.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P. W., and Jackendoff, R.. 2001. Control is not movement. Linguistic Inquiry 32(3): 493–512. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438901750372531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darzi, A. 2008. On the vP analysis of Persian finite control constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 39(1): 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deal, A. R. 2015. Ergativity. In Alexiadou, A. and Kiss, T. (eds.), Syntax – Theory and Analysis: An International Handbook, 654–707. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Deal, A. R. 2017. Covert hyperraising to object. In Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS), 257–270 Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Diercks, M. 2012. Parameterizing case: Evidence from Bantu. Syntax 15(3): 253–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2011.00165.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doliana, A., and Sundaresan, S.. 2022. Proxy control: A new species of control in grammar. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 40: 1–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-020-09501-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, M. 2000. Argumentos nulos em português brasileiro. PhD thesis, Universidade de Campinas.Google Scholar
Ferreira, M. 2009. Null subjects and finite control in Brazilian Portuguese. In Nunes, J. (ed.), Minimalist Essays on Brazilian Portuguese Syntax, 17–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fong, S. 2019. Proper movement through Spec-CP: An argument from hyperraising in Mongolian. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1): 30. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.667.Google Scholar
Fong, S. 2022. Distinguishing between accounts of the A/A′-distinction: The view from Argentinian Spanish clitic doubling. Isogloss: Open Journal of Romance Linguistics 8(2): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/isogloss.132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fong, S. 2024. Pronouncing pro in Wolof. In Huang, Y., Kaldhol, N. H., Lim, J. J., Rose, S., and Struthers-Young, A. (eds.), Proceedings of ACAL 53, 237–261. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Ganenkov, D. 2022. Partial Control with Overt Embedded Subjects in Chirag. Ms., Humboldt University of Berlin. https://lingbuzz.net/lingbuzz/007028.Google Scholar
Georgi, D. 2014. Opaque Interactions of Merge and Agree: On the Nature and Order of Elementary Operations. PhD thesis, University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, J. 2001. Control and thematic agreement. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 46(1–2): 9–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grano, T. 2015. Control and Restructuring [Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 56]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haddad, Y. A. 2009. Copy control in Telugu. Journal of Linguistics 45(1): 69–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haddad, Y. A. 2012. Raising in Standard Arabic: Backward, forward, and none. In Bassiouney, R. and Katz, E. G. (eds.), Arabic Language and Linguistics, 61–78. Washington, DC, Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Halpert, C. 2015. Argument Licensing and Agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpert, C. 2019. Raising, unphased. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37(1): 123–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-018-9407-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpert, C., and Zeller, J.. 2015. Right dislocation and raising-to-object in Zulu. The Linguistic Review 32(3): 475–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harðarson, G. R. 2016. A case for a Weak Case Contiguity hypothesis: A reply to Caha. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34(4): 1329–1343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049–016–9328-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2022. Ergative, absolutive, accusative and nominative as comparative concepts. In Iomdin, L., Milićević, J., and Polguère, A. (eds.), Lifetime Linguistic Inspirations: To Igor Mel’čuk, 201–213. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30(1): 69–96. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999553968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N., and Polinsky, M. (eds.). 2010. Movement Theory of Control [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 154]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ilkhanipour, N. 2014. On the CP analysis of Persian finite control constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 45(2): 323–331. https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keine, S. 2018. Case vs. positions in the locality of A-movement. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 138. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.520.Google Scholar
Koopman, H., and Sportiche, D.. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua 85(2–3): 211–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornfilt, J., and Preminger, O.. 2015. Nominative as no case at all: An argument from raising-to- accusative in Sakha. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 9), 109–120. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kroeger, P., and Frazier, K.. 2020. Crossed-control in Malay/Indonesian as long-distance passivization. In Paul, I. (ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA). University of Western Ontario.Google Scholar
Landau, I. 1999. Elements of Control. PhD thesis, MIT. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/9352.Google Scholar
Landau, I. 2003. Movement out of control. Linguistic Inquiry 34(3): 471–498. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438903322247560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 2004. The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22(4): 811–877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-4265-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 2006. Severing the distribution of PRO from case. Syntax 9(2): 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2006.00087.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 2007. Movement-resistant aspects of control. In Davies, W. D. and Dubinsky, S. (eds.), New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 71], 293–325. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 2008. Two routes of control: Evidence from case transmission in Russian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26(4): 877–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 2013. Control in Generative Grammar: A Research Companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 2015. A Two-Tiered Theory of Control [Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 71]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, H. 1999. Chains of arguments. In Epstein, S. D. and Hornstein, N. (eds.), Working Minimalism [Current Studies in Linguistics Series 32], 189–216. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lee, F. 2003. Anaphoric R–expressions as bound variables. Syntax 6(1): 84–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, K. Y. 2009. Finite Control in Korean. PhD thesis, University of Iowa. https://doi.org/10.17077/etd.qgulnymt.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, T. T.-M., and Yip, K.-F.. 2022. Hyperraising, Evidentiality, and Phase Deactivation. Ms., University of Southern California and Yale University. https://lingbuzz.net/lingbuzz/006471/.Google Scholar
Li, D. 2021. Controlling overt subjects in Mandarin. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 6(1): 303–316. https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v6i1.4973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Livitz, I. 2014. Deriving Silence through Dependent Reference: Focus on Pronouns. PhD thesis, New York University.Google Scholar
Lohninger, M., Kovač, I., and Wurmbrand, S.. 2022. From prolepsis to hyperraising. Philosophies 7(2): 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies7020032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahajan, A. K. 1990. The A/A-Bar Distinction and Movement Theory. PhD thesis, MIT. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/13650.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 1991. Case and licensing. In Westphal, G., Ao, B., and Chae, H.-R. (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL 8), 234–253. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Martin, R. 2001. Null case and the distribution of PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 32(1): 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438901554612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, T. 2004. The Position of Morphological *Case in the Derivation: A Study on the Syntax–Morphology Interface. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania. https://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI3125870/.Google Scholar
McFadden, T., and Sundaresan, S.. 2018. Reducing pro and PRO to a single source. The Linguistic Review 35(3): 463–518. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2018-0003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Modesto, M. 2007. Null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese and Finnish: They are not derived by movement. In Davies, W. D. and Dubinsky, S. (eds.), New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 71], 231–248. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Modesto, M. 2011. Finite control: Where movement goes wrong in Brazilian Portuguese. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 10(2). https://doi.org/10.5334/jpl.95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, G. 2017. Structure removal: An argument for feature-driven Merge. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1): 138. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.193.Google Scholar
Natarina, A. 2018. Complementation in Balinese: Typological, Syntactic, and Cognitive Perspectives. Ms., University of Iowa. https://doi.org/10.17077/etd.1h90npxe.Google Scholar
Ndayiragije, J. 2012. On raising out of control. Linguistic Inquiry 43(1): 275–299. https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, A., and Payne, A.. 2020. On matrix-clause intervention in accusative-and-infinitive constructions. Syntax 23(1): 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevins, A. 2004. Derivations without the Activity Condition. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49: 287–310.Google Scholar
Nunes, J. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement [Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 43]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, J. 2008. Inherent case as a licensing condition for A-movement: The case of hyperraising constructions in Brazilian Portuguese. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 7(2). https://doi.org/10.5334/jpl.129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrove, J. 2024. Obligatorily overt PRO in San Martín Peras Mixtec. Linguistic Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, I., Travis, L., Vander Klok, J., and Wurmbrand, S.. 2021. Crossed control as Voice restructuring. In Hernández, A. and Plyley, C. (eds.), Proceedings of the 2021 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. Canadian Linguistic Association.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. 2021. Exfoliation: Towards a Derivational Theory of Clause Size. Ms., MIT. https://lingbuzz.net/lingbuzz/004440/.Google Scholar
Pietraszko, A. 2021. Backward control without A-movement or φ-agreement. In Proceedings of NELS 51 . lingbuzz/005959.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M., and Potsdam, E.. 2002a. Backward control. Linguistic Inquiry 33(2): 245–282. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438902317406713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, M., and Potsdam, E.. 2002b. Backward control: Evidence from Malagasy. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 44: 257–272.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M., and Potsdam, E.. 2003. Control in Malagasy. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 19: 173–187.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M., and Potsdam, E.. 2006. Expanding the scope of control and raising. Syntax 9(2): 171–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2006.00090.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, M., and Potsdam, E.. 2008. The syntax and semantics of wanting in Indonesian. Lingua 118(10): 1617–1639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, E. 2022. Improper case. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 41: 347–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-022-09541-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postal, P. 1974. On Raising: One Rule of English Grammar and Its Theoretical Implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Potsdam, E., and Haddad, Y.. A. 2013. Linearizing the control relation: A typology. In Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. (eds.), Challenges to Linearization [Studies in Generative Grammar 114], 235. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Potsdam, E., and Polinsky, M.. 2012. Backward raising. Syntax 15(1): 75–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2011.00158.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preminger, O. 2014. Agreement and Its Failures [Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 68]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues, C. A. N. 2004. Impoverished Morphology and A-Movement out of Case Domains. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park. https://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/1882.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. S. 1965. The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. PhD thesis, MIT. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/16391.Google Scholar
Safir, K. 2019. The A/Ā distinction as an epiphenomenon. Linguistic Inquiry 50(2): 285–336. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salzmann, M. 2017. Prolepsis. In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. C (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd ed., 3203–3245. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sato, Y. 2010. The Crossed-Control Construction and the Syntactic Role of Passive Morphology in Standard Indonesian. Ms. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001177.Google Scholar
Sato, Y. 2011. On the movement theory of obligatory control: Voices from standard Indonesian. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 56(2): 267–275. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100003170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, T. 2021. Formalizing Two Types of Mixed A/Ā Movement. Ms., University of California, Berkeley. lingbuzz/005874.Google Scholar
Sheehan, M., and Cyrino, S.. 2022. Restrictions on long passives in English and Brazilian Portuguese: A phase-based account. Linguistic Inquiry, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, M., and Van der Wal, J.. 2018. Nominal licensing in caseless languages. Journal of Linguistics 54(3): 527–589. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226718000178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starke, M. 2017. Resolving (DAT = ACC) ≠ GEN. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1): 104. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.408.Google Scholar
Sulemana, A.-R. 2021. Non-finite Complementation: A Case Study of Bùlì. PhD thesis, MIT. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/139142.Google Scholar
Sundaresan, S. 2010. A phase-based account of the PRO/anaphor distinction. Proceedings of ConSOLE XVIII 1: 19.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. 2009. Overt nominative subjects in infinitival complements cross-linguistically. In I. and Rojas, V. (eds.), NYU WPL in Syntax, Spring 2009.Google Scholar
Takahashi, S., and Hulsey, S.. 2009. Wholesale late merger: Beyond the A/Ā distinction. Linguistic Inquiry 40(3): 387–426. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.3.387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, H. 2002. Raising to object out of CP. Linguistic Inquiry 33(4): 637–652. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438902762731790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terzi, A. 1997. PRO and null case in finite clauses. The Linguistic Review 14(4): 335–360. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1997.14.4.335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Urk, C. 2015. A Uniform Syntax for Phrasal Movement: A Case Study of Dinka Bor. PhD thesis, MIT. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/101595.Google Scholar
Wood, J. 2012. Against the movement theory of control: Another argument from Icelandic. Linguistic Inquiry 43(2): 322–330. https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, J. 2017. Icelandic object extraposition is still a problem for the Movement Theory of Control: A reply to Drummond and Hornstein. Linguistic Inquiry 48(3): 513–527. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. 1998. Infinitives. PhD thesis, MIT. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/9592.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. 2014. Tense and aspect in English infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 45(3): 403–447. https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoon, J. H. 2004. Non-nominative (major) subjects and case stacking in Korean. Typological Studies in Language 61: 265–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoon, J. H. 2007. Raising of major arguments in Korean and Japanese. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25(3): 615–653. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-007-9020-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwart, J.-W., and Lindenbergh, C.. 2021. Rethinking Alignment Typology. BoD–Books on Demand.Google Scholar
Zyman, E. 2018. On the Driving Force for Syntactic Movement. PhD thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5qp401x1.Google Scholar
Zyman, E. 2023. Raising out of finite clauses (hyperraising). Annual Review of Linguistics 9. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-022421-070658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Amiridze, N. 1998. Georgian grammaticalized body-part tav and the economic motivation of language. Bulletin of the Georgian Academy of Sciences 157(1): 160–163.Google Scholar
Amiridze, N. 2006. Reflexivization Strategies in Georgian. PhD dissertation, Utrecht: LOT International Dissertation Series.Google Scholar
Amritavalli, R. 2000. Lexical anaphors and pronouns in Kannada. In Lust, et al. (eds.), 49–112.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, E., and Everaert, M.. 1996. How exceptional are nominative anaphors? A case study of Greek. In Nash, L., Tsoulas, G., and Zribi-Hertz, A. (eds.), Actes du deuxieme colloque Langue et Grammaire, Paris VIII, 19–32. Paris VIII.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. 1986. The typology of anaphoric dependencies: Icelandic (and other) reflexives. In Hellan, L. and Christensen, K. Koch (eds.), Topics in Scandinavian Syntax, 65–88. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. 2008. The macroparameter in a microparametric world. In Biberauer, T. (ed.), The Limits of Syntactic Variation, 351–374. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, C. 2012. Quantificational binding does not require c-command. Linguistic Inquiry 43(4): 614–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battistella, E. 1987. Chinese reflexivization. Paper presented at the Second Harbin Conference on Generative Grammar, Heilongjiang University, Harbin, People’s Republic of China; Ms., University of Alabama at Birmingham.Google Scholar
Bavelier, D. 1994. Repetition blindness between visually different items: The case of pictures and words. Cognition 51: 199–236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boeckx, C., Hornstein, N., and Nunes, J.. 2007. Overt copies in reflexive and control structures: A Movement analysis. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 15: 1–45.Google Scholar
Bond, O. 2019. Canonical typology. In Audring, J. and Masini, F. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Morphological Theory, 409–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H. 2020. Reflexive and reciprocal personal pronouns. Taalportaal. https://taalportaal.org/taalportaal/topic/pid/topic-13998813311587583.Google Scholar
Bruening, B. 2021. Generalizing the presuppositional approach to the Binding Conditions. Syntax 24(4): 417–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charnavel, I. 2019. Locality and Logophoricity: A Theory of Exempt Anaphora. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charnavel, I. 2020. Logophoricity and locality: A view from French anaphors. Linguistic Inquiry 51(4): 671–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charnavel, I., and Sportiche, D.. 2016. Anaphor binding: What French inanimate anaphors show. Linguistic Inquiry 47(1): 35–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charnavel, I., Huang, C.-T., Cole, P., and Hermon, G.. 2017. Long-distance anaphora: Syntax and discourse. In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom074.Google Scholar
Chief, L.-C. 1998. Mandarin intransitive reflexive verbs and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Language, Information and Computation 12:48–59.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2008. On phases. In Freidin, R., Otero, C., and Zubizarreta, M.-L. (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, P., Hermon, G., and Sung, L.-M.. 1990. Principles and parameters of long-distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry 21(1): 1–22.Google Scholar
Cole, P., Hermon, G., and Yanti, . 2015. Grammar of binding in languages of the world: Innate or learned? Cognition 141: 138–160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conroy, S. 2007. I’m going to do me a talk on personal datives … but not really. Syntax Lunch Talk, February 21. Published as Personal datives in Appalachian English as a reflexive pronoun. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 16: 63–88. https://bibbase.org/network/publication/conroy-thepersonaldativeinappalachianenglishasareflexivepronoun-2007.Google Scholar
Déchaine, R.-M., and Manfredi, V.. 1994. Binding domains in Haitian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 12: 203–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Déchaine, R.-M., and Wiltschko, M.. 2017. A formal typology of reflexives. Studia Linguistica 71(1–2): 60–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delfitto, D., and Fiorin, G.. 2011. Person features and pronominal anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 42(2): 193–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dimitriadis, A. 2012. An event semantics for the Theta System. In Everaert, M., Marelj, M., and Siloni, T. (eds.), The Theta System: Argument Structure at the Interface, 308–353. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dimitriadis, A., and Everaert, M.. 2004. Typological perspectives on anaphora. In Suihkonen, P. and Comrie, B. (eds.), International Symposium on Deictic Systems and Quantification in Languages Spoken in Europe and North and Central Asia. Collection of Papers, 51–67. Udmurt State University.Google Scholar
Dimitriadis, A., and Everaert, M.. 2014. How many theta-roles in a reflexive verb? Acta Linguistica Hungarica 61: 247–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dimitriadis, A., and Que, M.. 2009. The doubly marked reflexive in Chinese. In Lalitha Devi, S., Branco, A., and Mitkov, R. (eds.), Anaphora Processing and Applications [Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5847], 80–90. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1988. A Grammar of Boumaa Fijian. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Doàn, N. 2022. Anaphoric Dependencies in Vietnamese: A Syntactic Approach. PhD dissertation, Amsterdam: LOT International Dissertation Series.Google Scholar
Doàn, N., Reuland, E., and Everaert, M. 2024. The blocking effect in Vietnamese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics. 33: 153–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, N., and Levinson, S.. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32: 429–492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Everaert, M. 1990. Nominative anaphors in Icelandic: Morphology or syntax? In Abraham, W., Kosmeijer, W., and Reuland, E. (eds.), Issues in Germanic Syntax, 277–307. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everaert, M. 1991. Contextual determination of the anaphor/pronominal distinction. In Koster, and Reuland, (eds.), 49–75.Google Scholar
Everaert, M. 2000. Types of anaphoric expressions: Reflexives and reciprocals. In Frajzyngier, Z. and Curl, T. (eds.), Reflexives: Forms and Functions, 63–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Everaert, M., and Anagnostopoulou, E.. 1999. Toward a more complete typology of anaphoric expressions. Linguistic Inquiry 30(1): 97–118.Google Scholar
Faltz, L. 1977/1985. Reflexivization: A Study in Universal Syntax. PhD dissertation, University of California. [Published in 1985. New York: Garland.]Google Scholar
Finer, D. 1984. The Formal Grammar of Switch-Reference. PhD dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst [distributed by GLSA].Google Scholar
Forker, D. 2014. Are there subject anaphors? Linguistic Typology 18 1): 51–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franssen, F. 2010. Australian and Austronesian Anaphora: An Archival Approach. MA thesis, Utrecht University. https://studenttheses.uu.nl/handle/20.500.12932/5675.Google Scholar
Gast, V., and Haas, F.. 2008. Reflexive and reciprocal readings of anaphors in German and other European languages. In König, E. and Gast, V. (eds.), Reciprocals and Reflexives: Theoretical and Typological Explorations, 307–346. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghomeshi, J., and Ritter, E.. 1996. Binding, possessives, and the structure of DP. North East Linguistics Society 26(1): 87–100.Google Scholar
Giblin, I. 2016. Agreement Restrictions in Mandarin Long-Distance Binding. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Green, G. 1973. Some remarks on split controller phenomena, In Corum, C., Smith Stark, T. C., and Weiser, A. (eds.), Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 128–138. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Hara, T. 2002. Anaphoric dependencies in Japanese. PhD dissertation, Utrecht: LOT International Dissertation Series.Google Scholar
Harbour, D. 2014. Paucity, abundance and the theory of number. Language 90(1): 185–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harnish, R., and Farmer, A.. 1984. Pragmatics and the modularity of the linguistic system. Lingua 63: 255–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2008. A frequentist explanation of some universals of reflexive marking. Linguistic Discovery 6( 1): 40–63.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2023. Comparing reflexive constructions in the world’s languages. In Janic, K., Puddu, N., and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), Reflexive Constructions in the World’s Languages, 19–62. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Heim, I. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. [Published in 1989 by Garland, New York.]Google Scholar
Hellan, L. 1988. Anaphora in Norwegian and the Theory of Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, G. 2009. The Derivation of Anaphoric Relations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiraiwa, K. 2001. Multiple Agree and the Defective Intervention Constraint in Japanese. In Matushansky, O. and Szczegielniak, A. (eds.), The Proceedings of the 1st HUMIT Student Conference in Language Research (HUMIT 2000), 67–80. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 40.Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, K. 2005. Dimensions of Symmetry in Syntax: Agreement and Clausal Architecture. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Hoji, H. 1991. Kare. In Georgopoulos, C. and Ishihara, R. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language: Essays in Honors of S.-Y. Kuroda, 287–304. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hualde, J. I., and Ortiz de Urbina, J.. 2003. A Grammar of Basque. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.-T. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T., and Liu, C.-S.. 2001. Logophoricity, attitudes, and ziji at the interface. In Cole, P., Hermon, G., and Huang, C.-T. (eds.), Long-Distance Reflexives, 141–192. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T., and Tang, C.-C. J.. 1991. The local nature of the long-distance reflexive in Chinese. In Koster, and Reuland, (eds.), 263–282.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1992. Mme. Tussaud meets the binding theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 10: 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jayaseelan, K. A. 1997. Anaphors as pronouns. Studia Linguistica 51(2): 186–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jayaseelan, K. A. 2000. Lexical anaphors and pronouns in Malayalam. In Lust, et al. (eds.), 113–168.Google Scholar
Jeanne, L. M., and Hale, K.. 1985. Argument Obviation and Switch-Reference in Hopi. Ms., MIT. http://lingphil.mit.edu/papers/hale/papers/hale002.pdf.Google Scholar
Kartono, B. 2013. A Puzzle in Binding: Half Reflexive and Locally Bound Pronouns: A Comparative Study of Anaphoric Systems in Indonesian, Javanese, Palembangnese, City Jambi and Village Jambi. MA thesis, Utrecht University. https://studenttheses.uu.nl/handle/20.500.12932/14187.Google Scholar
Kartono, B., Reuland, E, and Everaert, M. 2021. Introducing diri: Understanding the role of diri as a reflexivizer. Oceanic Linguistics 60(2): 412–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kazenin, K. 2001. Verbal reflexives and the middle voice. In Haspelmath, M., König, E., Oesterreicher, W., and Raible, W. (eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, vol. 2, 916–927. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. 2000. An Historical Explanation of Some Binding Theoretic Facts in English. Ms., UCLA; presented at the UCSD conference on Explanation in Linguistics, 1999.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. 2009. Voice determines co-argument anaphora in W. Austronesian. In The Proceedings of AFLA 16, 77–91.Google Scholar
Keenan, E., and Comrie, B.. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63–99.Google Scholar
Keller, R. E. 1961. German Dialects: Phonology and Morphology. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Kitagawa, C. 1981. Anaphora in Japanese: Kare and zibun. In Farmer, A. and Kitagawa, C. (eds.), Coyote Papers: Working Papers in Linguistics from A to Z 2: Proceedings of the Arizona Conference on Japanese Linguistics, the Formal Grammar Sessions, 61–75. Tucson, Az: University of Arizona.Google Scholar
König, E. 2001. Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns. In Haspelmath, M., König, E., Oesterreicher, W., and Raible, W. (eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, vol. 1, 747–760. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
König, E., and Gast, V.. 2008. Reciprocity and reflexivity: Description, typology and theory. In König, E. and Gast, V. (eds.), Reciprocals and Reflexives: Theoretical and Cross-Linguistic Explorations, 1–32. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, E., and Siemund, P.. 2000. Intensifiers and reflexives: A typological perspective. In Frajzyngier, Z. and Curl, T. (eds.), Reflexives: Forms and Functions, 41–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, E., and Vezzosi, L.. 2004. The role of predicate meaning in the development of reflexivity. In Bisang, W., Himmelmann, N., and Wiemer, B. (eds.), What Makes Grammaticalization: A Look from Its Fringes and Its Components, 213–244. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, E., Siemund, P., and Töpper, S.. 2013. Intensifiers and reflexive pronouns. In Dryer, M. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, chapter 47. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/feature/47.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J. 2001. Local and long-distance reflexives in Turkish. In Cole, P., Hermon, G., and Huang, C.-T. (eds.), Long-Distance Reflexives, 197–226. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Koster, J., and Reuland, E. (eds.). 1991. Long-Distance Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Labelle, M. 2008. The French reflexive and reciprocal se. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26, 833–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, R., and Huang, C.. 2003. A Grammar of Qiang: With Annotated Texts and Glossary. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefebvre, C. 1998. Creole Genesis and the Acquisition of Grammar. The Case of Haitian Creole. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lidz, J. 2001. The argument structure of verbal reflexives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19(2): 311–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, C.-S. 1999 . Anaphora in Mandarin Chinese and Binding at the Interface. PhD dissertation, University of California Irvine.Google Scholar
Lust, B., Wali, K., Gair, J., and Subbārāo, K. V. (eds.). 2000. Lexical Anaphors and Pronouns in Selected South Asian Languages: A Principled Typology. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maling, J. 1982. Non-clause-bounded reflexives in Icelandic. In Fretheim, T. and Hellan, L. (eds.), Papers from the Sixth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, 90–107. Trondheim: Tapir.Google Scholar
Maling, J. 1984. Non-clause-bounded reflexives in Modern Icelandic. Linguistics and Philosophy 7: 211–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. R., and Wexler, K.. 1987. Parameters, binding theory, and learnability. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 413–444.Google Scholar
Marelj, M., and Reuland, E.. 2016. Clitics and reflexives: Reducing the lexicon–syntax parameter. In Reinhart, T., Everaert, M., Marelj, M., and Reuland, E. (eds.), Concepts, Syntax and Their Interfaces: The Theta System, 175–252. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moshagen, S., and Trosterud, T.. 1990. Non-clause-bounded reflexives in Mainland Scandinavian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 46: 47–52.Google Scholar
Moyse-Faurie, C. 2017. Reflexive markers in Oceanic languages. Studia Linguistica 71(1–2): 107–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murugesan, G. 2022. Deriving the anaphor–agreement effect and the violations of it. Syntax 25: 39–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muysken, P. 1993. Reflexes of Ibero-Romance reflexive clitic+verb combinations in Papiamentu: Thematic grids and grammatical relations. In Byrne, F. and Winford, D. (eds.), Focus and Grammatical Relations in Creole Languages, 285–301. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ndi, F. 2011. Limbum Reflexives. Paper presented at the Workshop “The World of Reflexives,” August 25–27, 2011, Utrecht University. See https://afranaphproject.afranaphdatabase.com/limbum-casemenu-202.Google Scholar
Noguchi, T. 1997. Two types of pronouns and variable binding. Language 73: 770–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patnaik, M., and Subbārāo, K. V.. 2000. An initial note on lexical anaphors and pronouns in Juang. In Lust, et al. (eds.), 841–859.Google Scholar
Pica, P. 1987. On the nature of the reflexivization cycle. In Proceedings of NELS 17. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Pica, P. 1991. On the interaction between antecedent-government and binding: The case of long-distance reflexivization. In Koster, and Reuland, (eds.), 119–135.Google Scholar
Pollard, C., and Sag, I.. 1992. Anaphors in English and the scope of the Binding Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 261–305.Google Scholar
Pollard, C., and Xue, P.. 1998. Chinese reflexive ziji: Syntactic reflexives vs. nonsyntactic reflexives. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7: 287–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potsdam, E. 1995. The long-distance anaphor in Fula. In Akinlabi, A. (ed.), Theoretical Approaches to African Linguistics, 167–182. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. 2006. Interface Strategies: Reference Set Computation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T., and Siloni, T.. 2005. The lexicon–syntax parameter: Reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 389–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuland, E. 2005. Agreeing to bind. In Broekhuis, H., Corver, N., Huybregts, M. A. C., Kleinhenz, U., and Koster, J. (eds.), Organizing Grammar: Linguistic Studies in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, 505–513. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Reuland, E. 2016. Grammar of binding in the languages of the world: Unity versus diversity. Cognition 168: 370–379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reuland, E. 2017a. Long-distance binding in Germanic languages (revised). In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom039.Google Scholar
Reuland, E. 2017b. Why is reflexivity so special? Understanding the world of reflexives. Studia Linguistica 71(1–2): 12–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuland, E., and Everaert, M.. 2000. Deconstructing binding. In Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 634–670. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Reuland, E., and Reinhart, T.. 1995. Pronouns, anaphors and Case. In Haider, H., Olsen, S., and Vikner, S. (eds.), Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax, 241–269. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuland, E., and Zubkov, P.. 2022. Agreeing to bind: The case of Russian. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 7(1). https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5730.Google Scholar
Reuland, E., Wong, C. H., and Everaert, M.. 2020. How the complexity of Mandarin zi-ji simplifies the grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 51(4): 799–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooryck, J., and Vanden Wyngaerd, G.. 2011. Dissolving Binding Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, G., Subbārāo, K. V., Kumar, R., and Everaert, M.. 2020. Kokborok and the simple-complex reflexive distinction. Studies in Language 45(2): 384–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudnev, P. 2017. Minimal pronouns, logophoricity and long-distance reflexivisation in Avar. Studia Linguistica 71(1–2): 154–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saito, M., and Hoji, H.. 1983 . Weak crossover and move α in Japanese. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 1: 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schadler, D. 2014. Reflexivity: Licensing or Enforcing. PhD dissertation, Utrecht: LOT International Dissertation Series.Google Scholar
Schadler, D. 2017. Reflexivity in two Zhuang dialects. Studia Linguistica 71(1–2): 136–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schladt, M. 2000. The typology and grammaticalization of reflexives. In Frajzyngier, Z. and Curl, T. (eds.), Reflexives: Forms and Functions, 125–153. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. 2005. Non-redundancy: Towards a semantic reinterpretation of binding theory. Natural Language Semantics 13(1): 1–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sengupta, G. 2000. Lexical anaphors and pronouns in Bangla. In Lust, et al. (eds.), 277–332.Google Scholar
Stimm, H. 1973. Medium und Reflexivkonstruktion im Surselvischen. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Subbārāo, K. V. 2012. South Asian languages: A Syntactic Typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subbārāo, K. V., and Lalitha Murthy, B.. 2000. Lexical anaphors and pronouns in Telugu. In Lust, et al. (eds.), 217–276.Google Scholar
Sundaresan, S. 2012. Context and (Co)Reference in the Syntax and Its Interfaces. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tromsø and University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Sundaresan, S. 2016 . Perspectival reflexivity and the kol morpheme. In Proceedings of Formal Approaches to South Asian Languages 5, 123–142.Google Scholar
Sundaresan, S. 2018 . Perspective is syntactic: Evidence from anaphora. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 128. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.81.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, T. 1995. On agreement and nominative objects in Icelandic. In Haider, H., Olsen, S., and Vikner, S. (eds.), Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax, 307–327. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Testelets, Y., and Toldova, S.. 1998. Refleksivnyje mestoimenija v dagestanskix jazykax i tipologija refleksiva [Reflexive pronouns in the Daghestanian languages and the typology of reflexive]. Voprosy Jazykoznania 4: 35–57.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A., Park, S.-Y., and Li, N.. 2006. A Reference Grammar of Wappo. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thráinsson, H. 1976. Reflexives and subjunctives in Icelandic. In Proceedings of NELS 6, 225–239. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H. 1991. Long-distance reflexives and the typology of NPs. In Koster, and Reuland, (eds.), 49–75.Google Scholar
Van Gelderen, E. 2000. A History of English Reflexive Pronouns: Person, Self, and Interpretability. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vennemann, T. 2015. Die germanischen Sprachen und die Reflexivierungstypologie. Sprachwissenschaft 40(1): 3–44.Google Scholar
Vinokurova, N. 2005. Lexical Categories and Argument Structure: A Study with Reference to Sakha. PhD dissertation, Utrecht: LOT International Dissertation Series.Google Scholar
Volkova, A. 2014. Licensing Reflexivity: Unity and Variation Among Selected Uralic Languages. PhD dissertation, Utrecht: LOT International Dissertation Series.Google Scholar
Volkova, A. 2017. Reflexivity in Meadow Mari: Binding and Agree. Studia Linguistica 71(1–2): 178–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volkova, A., and Reuland, E.. 2014. Reflexivity without reflexives? The Linguistic Review 31(3–4): 587–633. http://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2014-0012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wali, K., Lalitha Murthy, B., and Subbārāo, K. V.. 1991 . Bound pronominals in Marathi, Telugu and Mizo. Language Sciences 13(2): 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webelhuth, G., and Dannenberg, C.. 2006. Southern American personal datives: The theoretical significance of dialectal variation. American Speech 81(1): 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, C. H. 2021. Reflexivization in Mandarin: The Role of zi-ji and Its Components. PhD dissertation, Utrecht: LOT International Dissertation Series.Google Scholar
Woolford, E. 1999. More on the anaphor agreement effect. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 257–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zec, D. 1985. Objects in Serbo-Croatian. In Niepokuj, M., VanClay, M., Nikiforidou, V., and Feder, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 358–371. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Zubkov, P. 2018. The Grammar of Binding: A Study with Reference to Russian. Utrecht: LOT International Dissertation Series.Google Scholar
References
Al Khalaf, E. 2019. Floating quantifiers are autonomous phrases: A movement analysis. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1): 89. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.848.Google Scholar
Artiagoitia, X. 2006. Basque adjectives and the functional structure of the noun phrase. https://artxiker.ccsd.cnrs.fr/artxibo-00087305v1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, E., Jelinek, E., Kratzer, A., and Partee, B. H. (eds.). 1995. Quantification in Natural Languages [Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 54]. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 1995. On the absence of certain quantifiers in Mohawk. In Bach, et al. (eds.), 21–58.Google Scholar
Barker, C. 1998. Partitives, double genitives and anti-uniqueness. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16: 679–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barwise, J., and Cooper, R.. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. In Kulas, J., Fetzer, J. H., and Rankin, T. L. (eds.), Philosophy, Language, and Artificial Intelligence, 241–301. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beghelli, F., and Stowell, T.. 1997. The syntax of distributivity and negation. In Szabolcsi, A. (ed.), Ways of Scope Taking, 71–108. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benmamoun, E. 1999. The syntax of quantifiers and quantifier float. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 621–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bliss, H. A. 2012. A split DP analysis of Blackfoot nominal expressions. In Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, 1–15.Google Scholar
Bliss, H. A. 2013. The Blackfoot Configurationality Conspiracy: Parallels and Differences in Clausal and Nominal Structures. PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. 1995. Morphosyntax: The Syntax of Verbal Inflection. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. 2003. Floating quantifiers: Handle with care. In Cheng, L. and Sybesma, R. (eds.), The Second Glot International State-of-the-Article Book, 107–149. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Z. 2004. Be careful where you float your quantifiers. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22: 681–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruening, B. 2001. Syntax at the Edge: Cross-Clausal Phenomena and the Syntax of Passamaquoddy. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Chaiphet, K. 2017. Aspects of Quantifier Float in Thai. MA thesis, State University of New York at Stony Brook.Google Scholar
Cheng, L. L.-S, and Giannakidou, A.. 2009. On every type of quantificational expression in Chinese. In Giannakidou, A. and Rathert, M. (eds.), Quantification, Definiteness, and Nominalization, 53–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., and Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by Step, 219–394. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 2005. Deriving Greenberg’s Universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 315–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crippen, J. A. 2019. The Syntax in Tlingit Verbs, PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Csirmaz, A., and Szabolcsi, A.. 2012. Quantification in Hungarian. In Keenan, and Paperno, (eds.), 399–466.Google Scholar
Davis, H. 2011. Salish Lacks Generalized Quantifiers After All! Ms., University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Davis, H. 2013. All about all in (some) Salish languages. In Kook-Hee Gil, and Tsoulas, (eds.), 214–259.Google Scholar
Davis, H., and Matthewson, L.. 2019. Quantification. In Siddiqi, D., Barrie, M., Gillon, C., Haugen, J., and E. Mathieu (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of North American Languages, 310–328. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayal, V. 2013. The syntax of scope and quantification. In M. den Dikken (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax, 827–859. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Cat, C. 2000. Towards a unified analysis of French floating quantifiers. French Language Studies 10: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deal, A. R. 2010. Ergative case and the transitive subject: A view from Nez Perce. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28: 73–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Déchaine, R.-M. 1999. What Algonquian morphology is really like: Hockett revisited. In Bar-El, L., Déchaine, R.-M., and Reinholtz, C. (eds.), Papers from the Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Native American Languages, vol. 17 [MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics], 25–72. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Doetjes, J. 1997. Quantifiers and Selection: On the Distribution of Quantifying Expressions in French, Dutch, and English, vol. 32 [HIL Dissertations]. The Hague: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.Google Scholar
Dowty, D., and Brodie, B.. 1984. The semantics of “floated” quantifiers in a transformationless grammar. In Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 75–90. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Etxeberria, U. 2005. Quantification and Domain Restriction in Basque. PhD dissertation, University of the Basque Country-Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.Google Scholar
Etxeberria, U. 2008. On Basque quantification and on how some languages restrict their quantificational domain overtly. In Matthewson, (ed.), 225–277.Google Scholar
Etxeberria, U. 2012. Quantification in Basque. In Keenan, and Paperno, (eds.), 83–164.Google Scholar
Etxeberria, U., and Giannakidou, A.. 2010. Contextual restriction and the definite determiner. In Recanati, F., Stojanovic, I., and Villanueva, N. (eds.), Context-Dependence, Perspective and Relativity [Mouton Series in Pragmatics 6], 93–126. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, J. 2006. The Syntactic and Semantic Roots of Floating Quantification. PhD dissertaion, MIT.Google Scholar
Fox, D. 2003. On logical form. In Hendrick, R. (ed.), Minimalist Syntax, 82–123. Cambridge, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, D., and Pesetsky, D.. 2005. Cyclic linearization and syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics 31: 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, E., and Willie, M.. 2012. Are there null arguments in Athabascan? Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 44(2): 227–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, A. 2004. Domain restriction and the arguments of quantificational determiners. In Watanabe, K. and Young, R. B. (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 14. 110–128. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A. 2012. The landscape of Greek quantifiers. In Keenan, and Paperno, (eds.), 285–346.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A., and Cheng, L. L.-S.. 2006. (In)Definiteness, polarity, and the role of wh-morphology in free choice. Journal of Semantics 23(2): 135–183. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffl001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillon, C. 2013. The Semantics of Determiners: Domain Restriction in Skwxwú7mesh. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Hamilton, M. D. 2015. The Syntax of Mi’gmaq: A Configurational Account. PhD dissertation, McGill University, Canada.Google Scholar
Ionin, T., Matushansky, O., and Ruys, E. G.. 2006. Parts of speech: Toward a unified semantics for partitives. In Davis, C., Deal, A. R., and Zabbal, Y. (eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, vol. 1, 357–370.Google Scholar
Ishii, Y. 1998. Floating quantifiers in Japanese: NP quantifiers, VP quantifiers, or both? Researching and Verifying on Advanced Theory of Human Language, Grant-in-Aid for Coe Research Report 2 (no. 08ce1001), 149–171. Japan: Kanda University of International Studies.Google Scholar
Jelinek, E. 1995. Quantificational in Straits Salish. In Bach, et al. (eds.), 487–541.Google Scholar
Jenks, P. 2011. The Hidden Structure of Thai Noun Phrases. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Jenks, P. 2013. Quantifier float, focus, and scope in Thai. In Proceedings of Berkeley Linguistics Society 39, 90–107. Berkeley, CA: Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Jenks, P. 2018. Articulated definiteness without articles. Linguistic Inquiry 49(3): 501–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenks, P. 2020. Verbal and verbless copular clauses in Moro. Faits de Langues 51(1): 117–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenks, P., Julima, E., Naser, A., and Rose, S.. To appear. A Grammar of Moro. Berlin: Language Sciences Press.Google Scholar
Junker, M.-O. 1995. Syntaxe et sémantique des quantifieurs flottants “tous” et “chacun”: Distributivité en sémantique conceptuelle, vol. 28. Geneva: Librairie Droz.Google Scholar
Kang, B.-M. 2002. Categories and meanings of Korean floating quantifiers – with some references to Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11: 375–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. 1981. Binding, quantifiers, clitics, and control. In Heny, F. (ed.), Binding and Filtering, 191–211. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. 2002. Some properties of natural language quantifiers: Generalized quantifier theory. Linguistics and Philosophy 25(5/6): 627–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E. L. 2012. The quantifier questionnaire. In Keenan, and Paperno, (eds.), 1–20.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L., and Paperno, D. (eds.). 2012. Handbook of Quantification in Natural Language, vol. I. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E. L., and Paperno, D.. 2017. Overview. In Paperno, and Keenan, (eds.), 995–1004.Google Scholar
Kiss, K. É. 1991. Logical structure in syntactic structure: The case of Hungarian. In James Huang, C.-T., and May, R. (eds.), Logical Structure and Linguistic Structure: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives, 111–147. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Ko, H. 2007. Asymmetries in scrambling and cyclic linearization. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 49–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kobuchi-Philip, M. 2006. Floating numerals and floating quantifiers. Lingua 117: 814–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kobuchi-Philip, M. 2007. Individual-denoting classifiers. Natural Language Semantics 15: 95–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kook-Hee Gil, S. H, and Tsoulas, G. (eds.). 2013. Strategies of Quantification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koopman, H., and Sportiche, D.. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua 85(2–3): 211–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, A., and Shimoyama, J.. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Otsu, Y. (ed.), The Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A., and Shimoyama, J.. 2017. Indeterminate Pronouns: The View from Japanese, 123–143. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10106-4_7.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. 1999. At least some determiners aren’t determiners. In Turner, K. (ed.), The Semantics/Pragmatics Interface from Different Points of View, 257–291. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, W. 1982. Semantic constraints on the English partitive construction. In Proceedings of the 1st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 1, 231–242.Google Scholar
Landman, F. 2004. Indefinites and the Type of Sets. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liao, H.-C. 2011. Alternatives and Exhaustification: Non-Interrogative Uses of Chinese wh-Words. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Liao, W. R., and Wang, Y. I.. 2011. Multiple-classifier constructions and nominal expressions in Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 20: 145–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, J.-W. 1998. Distributivity in Chinese and its implications. Natural Language Semantics 6(2): 201–243. www.jstor.org/stable/23748736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, M. 2017. Varieties of alternatives: Mandarin focus particles. Linguistics and Philosophy 40(1): 61–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-016-9199-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, M. 2018. Varieties of Alternatives Focus Particles and Wh-Expressions in Mandarin. Singapore: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthewson, L. 1996. Determiner Systems and Quantificational Strategies: Evidence from Salish. PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Matthewson, L. 1999. On the interpretation of wide-scope indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 7: 79–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthewson, L. 2001. Quantification and the nature of crosslinguistic variation. Natural Language Semantics 9: 145–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthewson, L. 2004. On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Journal of American Linguistics 70(4): 369–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthewson, L. (ed.). 2008. Quantification: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Matthewson, L. 2013. Strategies of quantification in St’át’imcets and the rest of the world. In Kook-Hee Gil, and Tsoulas, (eds.), 15–39.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. 1997. Subjecthood and subject positions. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar: A Handbook of Generative Syntax, 197–236. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, J. 2000. Quantifier float and wh-movement in an Irish English. Linguistic inquiry 31(1): 57–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, J. 1996. Object scrambling and quantifier float in German. North East Linguistics Society 26: 179–193.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S. 1989. Structure and Case Marking in Japanese. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyagawa, S., and Arikawa, K.. 2007. Locality in syntax and floating numeral quantifiers. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 645–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, P. A. 2018. Evidence of a configurational structure in Meskwaki. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 3(1): 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakanishi, K. 2007a. Formal Properties of Measurement Constructions. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakanishi, K. 2007b. Measurement in the nominal and verbal domains. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 235–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakanishi, K. 2008. The syntax and semantics of floating numeral classifiers. In Miyagawa, S. and Saito, M. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, 287–319. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nishigauchi, T. 1986. Quantification in Syntax. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Nishigauchi, T. 1990. Quantification in the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, W. 1999. Categories and Case: The Sentence Structure of Korean. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ostrove, J. 2018. When Phi-Agreement Targets Topics: The View from San Martín Peras Mixtec. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Ott, D. 2012. Local Instability: Split Topicalization and Quantifier Float in German. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paperno, D., and Keenan, E. L. (eds.). 2017. Handbook of Quantification in Natural Language, vol. II. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Partee, B. 1988. Many quantifiers. In Powers, J. and de Jong, K. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth ESCOL, 383–402. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. 1995. Quantificational structures and compositionality. In Bach, et al. (eds.), 541–602.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D., and Torrego, E.. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Karimi, S., Samiian, V., and Wilkins, W. K. (eds.), Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation, 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimoyama, J. 2001. Wh-Constructions in Japanese. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Shimoyama, J. 2006. Indeterminate phrase quantification in Japanese. Natural Language Semantics 14(2): 139–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimoyama, J. 2008. Indeterminate pronouns. In Miyagawa, S. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, 372–393. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195307344.013.0014.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, U. 1991. Quantifiers as functional heads: A study of quantifier float in Hebrew. Lingua 84: 159–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, A. 2011. Floating quantifiers in Burmese and Thai. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 4: 114–146.Google Scholar
Speas, M., and Parsons Yazzie, E.. 1996. Quantifiers and the position of noun phrases in Navajo. In Jelinek, E., Midgette, S., Rice, K., and Saxon, L. (eds.), Athapaskan Language Studies: Essays in Honor of Robert W. Young, 35–80. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Sportiche, D. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 425–449.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. 2000. Quantifier movement in Icelandic. In Svenonius, P. (ed.), The Derivation of VO and OV, 255. Berlin: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. 1997. Strategies for scope taking. In Szabolcsi, A. (ed.), Ways of Scope Taking, 109–154. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. 2015. What do quantifier particles do? Linguistics and Philosophy 38(2): 159–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-015-9166-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takami, K. 2001. Nitieigo-no kinooteki koobun bunseki [A Functional Analysis of English and Japanese Constructions]. Tokyo: Hoo Syoboo.Google Scholar
Tamba, K., Torrence, H., and Zimmermann, M.. 2012. Wolof quantifiers. In Keenan, and Paperno, (eds.), 891–941.Google Scholar
Tang, C.-C. J. 1990. A note on the DP analysis of the Chinese noun phrase. Linguistics 28(2): 337–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ueda, M. 1986. On quantifier float in Japanese. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 12(0): 263–309.Google Scholar
Von Fintel, K., and Matthewson, L.. 2008. Universals in semantics. The Linguistic Review 25(1–2): 139–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westerståhl, D. 1984. Determiners and context sets. In Van Benthem, J. and Ter Meulen, A. (eds.), Generalized Quantifiers in Natural Language, 46–71. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Wu, Y., and Bodomo, A.. 2009. Classifiers ≠ determiners. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 487–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiang, M. 2008. Plurality, maximality and scalar inferences: A case study of Mandarin dou. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 17(3): 227–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-008-9025-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiang, Y. 2020. Function alternations of the Mandarin particle dou: Distributor, free choice licensor, and “even”. Journal of Semantics 37: 171–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, R. 2001. Common Nouns, Classifiers, and Quantification in Chinese. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Zerbian, S., and Krifka, M.. 2008. Quantification across Bantu languages. In Matthewson, (ed.), 383–314.Google Scholar
Zyman, E. 2018. Quantifier float as stranding: Evidence from Janitzio P’urhepecha. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 36(3): 991–1034. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9393-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Abels, K. 2003. Successive Cyclicity, Anti-Locality and Adposition Stranding. PhD thesis, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Aldridge, E. 2004. Ergativity and Word Order in Austronesian Languages. PhD thesis, Cornell University, NY.Google Scholar
Arregi, K. 2003. Clausal pied-piping. Natural Language Semantics 11(2): 115–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbiers, S. 2002. Remnant stranding and the theory of movement. In Artemis, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., Barbiers, S. and Gärtner, H.-M. (eds.), Dimensions of Movement: From Features to Remnants, 47–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbiers, S., Koeneman, O., and Lekakou, M.. 2010. Syntactic doubling and the structure of wh-chains. Journal of Linguistics 46(1): 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, W. G., Akinlabi, A., and Connell, B.. 2012. Two subject asymmetries in Defaka focus constructions. In Choi, J., Hogue, E. A., Punske, J., Tat, D., Schertz, J., and Trueman, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 294–302. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. 2003. Floating quantifiers: Handle with care. In Cheng, L. L.-S. and Sybesma, R. (eds.), The Second Glot International State-of-the-Article Book, 107–148. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boef, E. 2013. Doubling in Relative Clauses, Aspects of Morphosyntactic Microvariation in Dutch. PhD thesis, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Bonet, E., Cheng, L. L.-S., Downing, L. J., and Mascaró, J.. 2019. (In)direct reference in the phonology-syntax interface under phase theory: A response to “Modular PIC” (D’Alessandro and Scheer 2015). Linguistic Inquiry 50(4): 751–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2008. On the operator freezing effect. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26: 249–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branan, K., and Erlewine, M. Y.. 2024. A-bar probing for the closest DP. Linguistic Inquiry 55(2): 375–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruening, B. 2006. Differences between the wh-scope-marking and wh-copy constructions in Passamaquoddy. Linguistic Inquiry 37(1): 25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, L. L.-S., and Downing, L. J.. 2021. Recursion and the definition of universal prosodic categories. Languages 6(3): 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1993. A Minimalist Program for linguistic theory. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–50. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2021. Minimalism: Where are we now and where can we hope to go. Gengo Kenkyu 160: 1–41.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., Gallego, Á. J., and Ott, D.. 2019. Generative grammar and the faculty of language: Insights, questions and challenges. Catalan Journal of Linguistics Special Issue: Generative Syntax. Questions, Crossroads, and Challenges: 229–261.Google Scholar
Coon, J., Baier, N., and Levin, T.. 2021. Mayan agent focus and the ergative extraction constraint: Facts and fictions revisited. Language 97: 269–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, C. 2020. Crossing and stranding at edges: On intermediate stranding and phase theory. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5(1): 17. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.854.Google Scholar
Davis, C. P. 2021. Possessor extraction in colloquial English: Evidence for successive cyclicity and cyclic linearization. Linguistic Inquiry 52(2): 291–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayal, V. 1994. Scope marking as indirect wh-dependency. Natural Language Semantics 2(2): 137–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Den Besten, H. 2010. Is there prepositional stranding in COMP in Afrikaans? No way! In Zwart, J.-W. and de Vries, M. (eds.), Structure Preserved: Studies in Syntax for Jan Koster, 57–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Den Dikken, M. 2007. Phase extension contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal extraction. Theoretical Linguistics 33(1): 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Den Dikken, M. 2009. Arguments for successive cyclic movement through SpecCP, a critical review. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 9: 89–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Den Dikken, M. 2017. Overtly marked wh-paths. In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd ed., 1–41. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Den Dikken, M. 2018. Dependency and Directionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffield, N. 1995. Particles and Projections in Irish Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erlewine, M. Y. 2018. Extraction and licensing in Toba Batak. Language 94: 662–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, G. 2017. Partial wh-movement. In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. C. (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd ed., 1–57. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Felser, C. 2004. Wh-copying, phases, and successive cyclicity. Lingua 114(5): 543–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, D., and Pesetsky, D.. 2005. Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics 31: 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgi, D. 2017. Patterns of movement reflexes as the result of the order of merge and agree. Linguistic Inquiry 48(4): 585–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgi, D., Salzmann, M., and Wierzba, M.. 2019. Condition A reconstruction in German Ā-movement: An empirical investigation. In Proceedings of NELS 49. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Gould, I. 2021. On wh-copying in Mon. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 30(4): 357–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guerzoni, E. 2006. Intervention effects on NPIs and feature movement: Towards a unified account of intervention. Natural Language Semantics 14: 359–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harizanov, B. 2014. Clitic doubling at the syntax–morphophonology interface. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32(4): 1033–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, H. 2013a. Diagnosing head movement. In Cheng, L. L.-S. and Corver, N. (eds.), Diagnosing Syntax, 112–120. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, H. 2013b. External arguments and the Mirror Principle: On the distinctness of Voice and v. Lingua 125: 34–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, H. 2017. The “bundling” hypothesis and the disparate functions of little v. In D’Alessandro, R., Franco, I., and Gallego, Á. J. (eds.), The Verbal Domain, 3–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Henry, A. 2012. Phase edges, quantifier float and the nature of (micro-)variation. Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 4(1): 23–39.Google Scholar
Herburger, E. 1994. A semantic difference between full and partial wh-movement in German. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Irurtzun, A. 2007. The Grammar of Focus at the Interfaces. PhD thesis, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Vitoria-Gasteiz.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J., and Postal, P.. 1964. An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keine, S., and Zeijlstra, H.. To appear. Clause-internal successive cyclicity: Phasality or DP intervention. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory.Google Scholar
Kishimoto, H. 2005. Wh-in-situ and movement in Sinhala questions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23(1): 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopman, H. 2010. On Dutch allemaal and West Ulster English all. In Zwart, J.-W. and de Vries, M. (eds.), Structure Preserved: Studies in Syntax for Jan Koster, 267–275. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsah, S., and Murphy, A.. 2020. Tonal reflexes of movement in Asante Twi. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 38(3): 827–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koster, J. 2009. IM not perfect: The case against copying. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.Google ScholarPubMed
Kratzer, A. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, J. and Zaring, L. (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 2006. Chain resolution in Hebrew V(P)-fronting. Syntax 9(1): 32–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohndal, T. 2010. Medial-wh phenomena, parallel movement and parameters. Linguistic Analysis 34: 215–244.Google Scholar
Matushansky, O. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37(1): 69–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, J. 1976. Conditions on transformations in Modern Irish. In Kegl, J., Nash, D., and Zaenen, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistics Society. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. 2000. Quantifier float and wh-movement in an Irish English. Linguistic Inquiry 31(1): 57–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, J. 2001. The morphosyntax of wh-extraction in Irish. Journal of Linguistics 37(1): 67–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, A. 2016. What copying (doesn’t) tell us about movement: Remarks on the derivation wh-copying in German. In Barnickel, K., Guzmán, M., Hein, J., Korsah, S., Murphy, A., Paschen, L., Pu, Z.škar, and Zaleska, J. (eds.), Replicative Processes in Grammar [Linguistische Arbeits Berichte 93], 149–188. Leipzig: University of Leipzig Press.Google Scholar
Newman, E. To appear. Probing for the closest DP: A reply to Branan et al. 2022. Linguistic Inquiry.Google Scholar
Nishigauchi, T. 1990. Quantification in the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noonan, M. 2002. CP-pied-piping and remnant IP movement in long distance wh-movement. In Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., Barbiers, S., and Gärtner, H.-M. (eds.), Dimensions of Movement: From Features to Remnants, 269–295. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, J. 1995. The Copy Theory of Movement and Linearization of Chains in the Minimalist Program. PhD thesis, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Nunes, J. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortiz de Urbina, J. 1989. Parameters in the Grammar of Basque: A GB Approach to Basque Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pankau, A. 2013. Replacing Copies: The Syntax of Wh-Copying in German. PhD thesis, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In E. Reuland, J. and ter Meulen, A. G. B. (eds.), The Representation of (In)definiteness, 98–129. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Poletto, C., and Pollock, J.-Y.. 2004. On I-clitics, wh-doubling in French and some North Eastern Italian dialects. Probus 16: 241–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rackowski, A., and Richards, N.. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistic Inquiry 36(4): 565–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reis, M. 1995. Extractions from verb-second clauses in German? In Lutz, U. and Pafel, J. (eds.), On Extraction and Extraposition in German, 45–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reis, M. 2000. On the parenthetical features of German: Was…W-constructions and how to account for them. In Lutz, U., Müller, G., and von Stechow, A. (eds.), Wh-Scope Marking, 359–407. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rett, J. 2006. Pronominal vs. determiner wh-words: Evidence from the copy construction. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 6(6): 355–374.Google Scholar
Rugna, G. 2023. Issues in the Morphosyntax of Wh-Elements, PhD thesis, University of Florence.Google Scholar
Salzmann, M., Wierzba, M., and Georgi, D.. 2023. Condition C in German A – movement: Tackling challenges in experimental research on reconstruction. Journal of Linguistics 59(3): 577–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sportiche, D. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 425–449.Google Scholar
Torrego, E. 1984. On inversion in Spanish and some of its effects. Linguistic Inquiry 15(1): 103–129.Google Scholar
Torrence, H. 2012. The morpho-syntax of silent wh-expressions in Wolof. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30(4): 1147–1184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torrence, H. 2013. A promotion analysis of Wolof clefts. Syntax 16(2): 176–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, J. 1999. Multiple spell-out. In Epstein, S. and Hornstein, N. (eds.), Working Minimalism, 251–282. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Van Riemsdijk, H. 1985. On pied-piped infinitives in German relative clauses. In Toman, J. (ed.), Studies in German Grammar, 165–192. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Urk, C. 2015. A Uniform Syntax for Phrasal Movement: A Case Study of Dinka Bor. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Van Urk, C. 2018. Pronoun copying in Dinka Bor and the copy theory of movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 36(3): 937–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Urk, C. 2020. Successive cyclicity and the syntax of long-distance dependencies. Annual Review of Linguistics 6(1): 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Urk, C., and Richards, N.. 2015. Two components of long distance extraction: successive cyclicity in Dinka. Linguistic Inquiry 46: 113–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiland, B. 2010. Overt evidence from left-branch extraction in Polish for punctuated paths. Linguistic Inquiry 41(2): 335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Abenina-Adar, M. 2019. Know whether and -ever free relatives. Semantics and Pragmatics 12(19): 1–46. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.12.19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adger, D., and Ramchand, G.. 2005. Merge and move: Wh-dependencies revisited. Linguistic Inquiry 36(2): 161–193. https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389053710729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aguilar-Guevara, A., Aloni, M., Port, A., Šimík, R., de Vos, M., and Zeijlstra, H.. 2011. Semantics and pragmatics of indefinites: Methodology for a synchronic and diachronic corpus study. In Dipper, S. and Zinsmeister, H. (eds.), Bochumer Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 3: Proceedings of the workshop Beyond semantics: Corpus-based investigations of pragmatic and discourse phenomena, 1–16. Bochum. www.linguistics.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/bla/.Google Scholar
Aloni, M. 2007. Free choice and exhaustification: An account of subtrigging effects. In Puig-Waldmüller, E. (ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, 16–30. Barcelona: Pompeu Fabra University. https://doi.org/10.18148/sub/2007.v11i0.628.Google Scholar
Andrews, A. D. L. 1975. Studies in the Syntax of Relative and Comparative Clauses. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Antonio-Ramos, P. 2021. Headless relative clauses in San Pedro Mixtepec Zapotec. In Caponigro, et al. (eds.), 221–259.Google Scholar
Arkadiev, P. 2020. Syntax in morphological guise: Interrogative verbal morphology in Abaza. Linguistic Typology 24(2): 211–251. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2020-5004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arkadiev, P., and Caponigro, I.. 2021. Conveying content questions without wh-words: Evidence from Abaza. In Grosz, P. G., Martí, L., Pearson, H., Sudo, Y., and Zobel, S. (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 25, 73–94. London: University College London, and Queen Mary University of London. https://doi.org/10.18148/sub/2021.v25i0.925.Google Scholar
Assmann, A. 2014. Case stacking in nanosyntax. In Assmann, A., Bank, S., Georgi, D., Klein, T., Weisser, P., and Zimmermann, E. (eds.), Topics at InfL [Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 92], 153–196. Leipzig: University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Bacskai-Atkari, J., and Dékány, É.. 2021. Cyclic changes in Hungarian relative clauses. In Jónsson, J. G. and Eythórsson, T. (eds.), Syntactic Features and the Limits of Syntactic Change, 1–22. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Balusu, R. 2017. Free choice relatives in Telugu. In Hohaus, V. and Rothe, W. (eds.), Proceedings of TripleA 3: Fieldwork Perspectives on the Semantics of African, Asian, and Austronesian Languages, 70–84. Tübingen: Universitätsbibliothek Tübingen. https://doi.org/10.15496/publikation-15364.Google Scholar
Barbiers, S., Koeneman, O., and Lekakou, M.. 2010. Syntactic doubling and the structure of wh-chains. Journal of Linguistics 46(1): 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226709990181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassi, I., Hirsch, A., and Trinh, T.. 2022. Pre-DP only is a propositional operator at LF: A new argument from ellipsis. In Starr, J. R., Kim, J., and Öney, B. (eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, 814–830. Washington, DC: Linguistic Society of America. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v1i0.5358.Google Scholar
Bauer, J. 1960. Vývoj českého souvĕtí [Studie a práce lingvistické 4]. Prague: Nakladatelství Československé akademie ved.Google Scholar
Beck, S. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14(1): 1–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-005-4532-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belyaev, O., and Haug, D.. 2020. The genesis and typology of correlatives. Language 96(4): 874–907. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2020.0065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benincà, P. 2001. The position of topic and focus in the left periphery. In Cinque, G. and Salvi, G. (eds.), Current Studies in Italian Syntax: Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi, 39–64. Amsterdam: North Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertollo, S., and Cavallo, G.. 2012. The syntax of Italian free relative clauses: An analysis. In Baunaz, L. and Socanac, T. (eds.), Generative Grammar in Geneva 8, 59–76. http://www.unige.ch/lettres/linge/syntaxe/journal/volume_huit_2012.html.Google Scholar
Bertrand, N. 2023. When phonology outranks syntax: Postponed relative pronouns in Pindar. Glossa: a Journal of General Linguistics 8(1). https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.9842.Google Scholar
Bhatt, R. 2003. Locality in correlatives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21(3): 485–541. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024192606485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, R. 2011. Hindi–Urdu Unconditionals with caahe. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
Bianchi, V. 2000. Some issues in the syntax of relative determiners. In Alexiadou, A., Law, P., Meinunger, A., and Wilder, C. (eds.), The Syntax of Relative Clauses, 53–81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.32.02bia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bittner, M. 2001. Topical referents for individuals and possibilities. In Hastings, R., Jackson, B., and Zvolenszky, Z. (eds.), SALT 11: Proceedings from the 11th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 36–55. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v11i0.2854.Google Scholar
Bjorkman, B. M., and Zeijlstra, H.. 2019. Checking up on (ϕ)-Agree. Linguistic Inquiry 50(3): 527–569. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, J., and Wurmbrand, S.. 2015. Questions with declarative syntax tell us what about selection? In Gallego, Á. and Ott, D. (eds.), 50 Years Later: Reflections on Chomsky’s Aspects [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 77]. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Borise, L. 2023. The syntax of wh-phrases, narrow foci, and neg-words in Georgian. The Linguistic Review 40(2): 173–215. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2023-2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branan, K., and Erlewine, M. Y.. 2023. Anti-pied-piping. Language 99(3): 603–653. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2023.a907013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brasoveanu, A. 2008. Uniqueness effects in correlatives. In Grønn, A. (ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 12, 47–65. Oslo: ILOS.Google Scholar
Brasoveanu, A. 2012. Correlatives. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. 1968. The development of wh questions in child speech. Journal of Verbal Learning and Behavior 7(2): 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(68)80002-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, J. 2004. Phase Structure, Phrase Structure, and Quantification. PhD dissertation, University of York, UK.Google Scholar
Bylinina, E., and Testelets, Y.. 2005. Sluicing-based indefinites in Russian. In Franks, S., Gladney, F., and Tasseva-Kurktchieva, M. (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 13: The South Carolina Meeting 2004, 355–364. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Bücking, S. 2021. The grammar of PP-like free relatives: Evidence from subordinate wo-clauses in German. Linguistic Inquiry 53(4): 753–779. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cable, S. 2005. Free Relatives in Tlingit and Haida: Evidence That the Mover Projects. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
Cable, S. 2008. Wh-Fronting in Hungarian Is Not Focus-Fronting. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Cable, S. 2010. The Grammar of Q: Q-Particles, wh-Movement, and Pied-Piping. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caponigro, I. 2003. Free Not to Ask: On the Semantics of Free Relatives and Wh-Words Cross-Linguistically. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Caponigro, I. 2019. In defense of what(ever) free relative clauses they dismiss: A reply to Donati and Cecchetto (2011). Linguistic Inquiry 50(2): 356–371. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caponigro, I. 2021. Introducing headless relative clauses and the findings from Mesoamerican languages. In Caponigro, et al. (eds.), 1–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197518373.003.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caponigro, I. in press. Still free to have a wh-phrase: A reply to Donati, Foppolo, Konrad, and Cecchetto 2022. Linguistic Inquiry advance publication. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caponigro, I., and Fălăuş, A.. 2019. (Re)introducing multiple wh-constructions: Where we were, how we proceeded, what still needs to be taken care of. Introductory lecture at the Workshop on Complex Multiple wh-Constructions, Nantes, November 2019.Google Scholar
Caponigro, I., Torrence, H., and Zavala, R. (eds.). 2021. Headless Relative Clauses in Mesoamerican Languages. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, A., and Starke, M.. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency: On the three grammatical classes. In van Riemsdijk, H. (ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe, 145–290. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cheng, L. L.-S. 1991. On the Typology of wh-Questions. PhD dissertation, MIT. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/13938.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. 2006. Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of language. Linguistic Inquiry 37(4): 535–590. www.jstor.org/stable/4179384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G. 2013. Logic in Grammar: Polarity, Free Choice, and Intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G., and Caponigro, I.. 2013. Questions on questions and free relatives. Presented at Sinn und Bedeutung 18, University of the Basque Country, September 2013.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1977. On wh-movement. In Culicover, P. W., Wasow, T., and Akmajian, A. (eds.), Formal Syntax, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chung, S., and Ladusaw, W. A.. 2006. Chamorro evidence for compositional asymmetry. Natural Language Semantics 14(4): 325–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-007-9007-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. 2020. The Syntax of Relative Clauses: A Unified Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citko, B. 2004. On headed, headless, and light-headed relatives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22(1): 95–126. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:NALA.0000005564.33961.e0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clancy, P., Jacobsen, T., and Silva, M.. 1976. The acquisition of conjunction: A crosslinguistic study. In Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 12, 71–80. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1998. Rethinking the typology of relative clauses. Language Design 1. 59–85. http://elies.rediris.es/Language_Design/LD1/comrie.pdf.Google Scholar
Daskalaki, E. 2020. Types of relative pronouns. In Bárány, A., Biberauer, T., Douglas, J., and Vikner, S. (eds.), Syntactic Architecture and Its Consequences II: Between Syntax and Morphology, 277–296. Berlin: Language Science Press. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4280653.Google Scholar
Dayal, V. 1996. Locality in wh-Quantification: Questions and Relative Clauses in Hindi [Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 62]. Dordrecht: Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4808-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayal, V. 1997. Free relatives and ever: Identity and free choice readings. In Lawson, A. (ed.), SALT 7: Proceedings from the 7th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 99–116. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v7i0.2787.Google Scholar
Dayal, V. 2004. Number marking and (in)definiteness in kind terms. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(4): 393–450. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:ling.0000024420.80324.67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Déchaine, R.-M., and Wiltschko, M.. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33(3): 409–442. www.jstor.org/stable/4179198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dékány, É., Gugán, K., and Tánczos, O.. 2020. Contact-induced change in Surgut Khanty relative clauses. Folia Linguistica 54(1): 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2020-2026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Del Gobbo, F. 2003. Appositives at the Interface. PhD dissertation, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
Demirdache, H. 1991. Resumptive Chains in Restrictive Relatives, Appositives, and Dislocation Structures. PhD dissertation, MIT. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/13518.Google Scholar
Demirok, Ö. 2017a. A compositional semantics for Turkish correlatives. In Kaplan, A., Kaplan, A., McCarvel, M. K., and Rubin, E. J. (eds.), WCCFL 34: Proceedings of the 34th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 159–166. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. http://lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/34/paper3308.pdf.Google Scholar
Demirok, Ö. 2017b. Free relatives and correlatives in wh-in-situ. In Lamont, A. and Tetzloff, K. (eds.), NELS 47: Proceedings of the Forty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. 2004. The Acquisition of Complex Sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Döhler, C. 2018. A Grammar of Komnzo [Studies in Diversity Linguistics 22]. Berlin: Language Science Press. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1477799.Google Scholar
Donati, C., and Cecchetto, C.. 2011. Relabeling heads: A unified account for relativization structures. Linguistic Inquiry 42(4): 519–560. https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donati, C., Foppolo, F., Konrad, I., and Cecchetto, C.. 2022. Whatever his arguments, whatever-relatives are not free relatives: A reply to Caponigro’s reply. Linguistic Inquiry 53(3): 522–550. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00413.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. S. 2013. Position of interrogative phrases in content questions. In Dryer, M. S. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, ch. 93. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/93.Google Scholar
Duncan, P. T. 2022. Documenting what’s in almost every narrative: Free relative clauses in Kiksht. International Journal of American Linguistics 88(3): 271–323. https://doi.org/10.1086/719842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckardt, R. 2007. Inherent focus on wh-phrases. In Puig-Waldmüller, E. (ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, 209–228. Barcelona: Pompeu Fabra University.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, K. 2002. The Syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fălăuş, A., and Nicolae, A.. 2022. Additive free choice items in unconditionals. Natural Language Semantics 30(2): 185–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-022-09192-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, K. 2000. Whatever. In Jackson, B. and Matthews, T. (eds.), SALT 10: Proceedings from the 10th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 27–39. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v10i0.3101.Google Scholar
Flynn, S., and Foley, C.. 2004. On the developmental primacy of free relatives. In Csirmaz, A., Gualmini, A., and Nevins, A. (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 48: Plato’s Problem: Problems in Language Acquisition, 59–69. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Flynn, S., and Lust, B.. 1980. Acquisition of relative clauses: Developmental changes and their heads. In Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 1, 33–45. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Friedmann, N., Belletti, A., and Rizzi, L.. 2021. Growing trees: The acquisition of the left periphery. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 6(1): 131. https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5877.Google Scholar
Fuß, E., and Grewendorf, G.. 2014. Freie Relativsätze mit d-Pronomen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 33(2): 165–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gawron, J. M., and Harada, Y.. 1996. Indefinites, conditionals, and quantification. In Nakagawa, H. (ed.), A Cognitive Study of Situatedness in English and Japanese: Toward a Flexible Natural Language Processing Systems, 81–96. Yokohama National University.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A., and Cheng, L. L.-S.. 2006. (In)definiteness, polarity, and the role of wh-morphology in free choice. Journal of Semantics 23(2): 135–183. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffl001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gisborne, N., and Truswell, R.. 2020. Which-hunting in Medieval England. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 65(3): 326–349. https://doi.org/10.1017/cnj.2020.11.Google Scholar
Grohmann, K. K. 2006. Top issues in questions: Topics, topicalization, topicalizability. In Cheng, L. L.-S. and Corver, N. (eds.), Wh-Movement: Moving On, 249–288. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grosu, A. 2016. The semantics, syntax, and morphology of transparent free relatives revisited: A comparison of two approaches. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34(4): 1245–1280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-016-9333-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haida, A. 2007. The Indefiniteness and Focusing of Question Wh-Words. PhD dissertation, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, D. P., and Caponigro, I.. 2011. On the semantics of temporal when-clauses. In Li, N. and Lutz, D. (eds.), SALT 20: Proceedings from the 20th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 544–563. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v20i0.2566.Google Scholar
Hamblin, C. L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10(1): 41–53. www.jstor.org/stable/25000703.Google Scholar
Hanink, E. A. 2021. DP structure and internally headed relatives in Washo. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 39(2): 505–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-020-09482-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198235606.001.0001.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 1998. How young is Standard Average European? Language Sciences 20(3): 271–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(98)00004-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haudry, J. 1973. Parataxe, hypotaxe et corrélation dans la phrase latine. Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 68: 147–186.Google Scholar
Heine, B., and Kuteva, T.. 2006. The Changing Languages of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199297337.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, K., Iatridou, S., and Roelofsen, F.. 2023. Quexistentials and focus. Linguistic Inquiry 54(3): 571–624. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiraiwa, K. 2020. The origin and architecture of existential indeterminates in Okinawan. In Farrell, P. (ed.), Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 5(1), 384–394. Washington, DC: Linguistic Society of America. https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v5i1.4705.Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, K., and Nakanishi, K.. 2021. Japanese free choice and existential indeterminates as hidden clauses. In Sinitsyna, J. and Tatevosov, S. (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 93: Proceedings of the 15th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL15), 45–58. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Hirsch, A. 2016. A compositional semantics for wh-ever free relatives. In Bade, N., Berezovskaya, P., and Schöller, A. (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 20, 341–358. http://semanticsarchive.net/sub2015/SeparateArticles/Hirsch-SuB20.pdf.Google Scholar
Hladnik, M. 2015. Mind the Gap: Resumption in Slavic Relative Clauses. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University. www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/390_fulltext.pdf.Google Scholar
Hoffner, H. A., and Melchert, H. C.. 2008. A Grammar of the Hittite Language, Part 1: Reference Grammar. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Horvath, J. 2013. Focus, exhaustivity, and the syntax of wh-interrogatives: The case of Hungarian. In Brandtler, J., Molnár, V., and Platzack, C. (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 13: Papers from the 2011 Lund Conference, 97–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/atoh.13.06hor.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huggard, M. 2011. On wh-(non-)movement and internal structures of the Hittite preposed relative clause. In Jamison, S. W., Melchert, H. C., and Vine, B. (eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, 83–104. Bremen: Hempen.Google Scholar
Huggard, M. 2015. Wh-Words in Hittite: A Study in Syntax–Semantics and Syntax–Phonology Interfaces. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1gb9f3dg.Google Scholar
Jayaseelan, K. A. 2001. Questions and question-word incorporating quantifiers in Malayalam. Syntax 4(2): 63–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, L. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(1): 3–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00351935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katis, D. 1997. The emergence of conditionals in child language: Are they really so late? In Athanasiadou, A. and Dirven, R. (eds.), On Conditionals Again, 355–386. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.143.20kat.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, J. J., and Postal, P. M.. 1964. An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L., and Comrie, B.. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1): 63–99. www.jstor.org/stable/4177973.Google Scholar
Kellert, O. 2018. Questions with definite markers in (Old) Romance, with focus on Old Spanish. Isogloss 4(1): 55–84. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/isogloss.56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenesei, I. 1994. Subordinate clauses. In Kiefer, F. and Kiss, K. É (eds.), The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian: Syntax and Semantics, 275–354. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1995. Indo-European origins of Germanic syntax. In Battye, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.), Clause Structure and Language Change [Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax], 140–167. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kluge, A. 2017. A Grammar of Papuan Malay [Studies in Diversity Linguistics 11]. Berlin: Language Science Press. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.376415.Google Scholar
Kondrashova, N., and Šimík, R.. 2013. Quantificational properties of neg-wh items in Russian. In Kan, S., Moore-Cantwell, C., and Staubs, R. (eds.), NELS 40: Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, vol. 2, 15–28. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Kotek, H. 2016. Covert partial wh-movement and the nature of derivations. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1(1): 25. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.49.Google Scholar
Kotek, H., and Erlewine, M. Y.. 2016. Unifying definite and indefinite free relatives: Evidence from Mayan. In Hammerly, C. and Prickett, B. (eds.), NELS 38: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, vol. 2, 241–254. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Kotek, H., and Erlewine, M. Y.. 2018. Non-interrogative wh-constructions in Chuj (Mayan). In Keough, M., Weber, N., Anghelescu, A., Chen, S., Guntly, E., Johnson, K., Reisinger, D., and Tkachman, O. (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on the Structure and Constituency of the Languages of the Americas (WSCLA) 21, 101–115. University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. 1991. The representation of focus. In von Stechow, A. and Wunderlich, D. (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, 825–834. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110126969.10.825.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A., and Shimoyama, J.. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Otsu, Y. (ed.), Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, 1–25. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A., and Shimoyama, J.. 2017. Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Lee, C., Kiefer, F., and Krifka, M. (eds.), Contrastiveness in Information Structure, Alternatives and Scalar Implicatures [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 91], 123–143. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10106-4_7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labelle, M. 1990. Predication, wh-movement, and the development of relative clauses. Language Acquisition 1(1): 95–119. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la0101_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, K.-O. 1991. On the First Language Acquisition of Relative Clauses in Korean: The Universal Structure of COMP. PhD dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. 1984. Der Relativsatz: Typologie seiner Strukturen – Theorie seiner Funktionen – Kompendium seiner Grammatik. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Lipták, A. 2004. On the correlative nature of Hungarian left-peripheral relatives. In Shaer, B., Frey, W., and Maienborn, C. (eds.), ZAS Papers in Linguistics 35: Proceedings of the Dislocated Elements Workshop, 287–313. Berlin: Zentrum für allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Lipták, A., and Aboh, E.. 2013. Sluicing inside relatives: The case of Gungbe. In Aalberse, S. and Auer, A. (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2013, 102–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.30.08lip.Google Scholar
Liu, M. 2016. Mandarin wh-conditionals as interrogative conditionals. In Moroney, M., Little, C.-R., Collard, J., and Burgdorf, D. (eds.), SALT 26: Proceedings from the 26th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 814–835. Washington, DC: Linguistic Society of America. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v26i0.3955.Google Scholar
Luo, Q.-P., and Crain, S.. 2011. Do Chinese wh-conditionals have relatives in other languages? Language and Linguistics 12(4): 753–798.Google Scholar
Lyutikova, E., and Sideltsev, A.. 2023. Relative construction in Hittite: A corpus-based case study in syntax–prosody interface. Journal of Historical Linguistics 13(3): 375–460. https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.22014.lyu.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahajan, A. 2000. Relative asymmetries in Hindi correlatives. In Alexiadou, A., Law, P., Meinunger, A., and Wilder, C. (eds.), The Syntax of Relative Clauses, 201–229. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marušič, F., Mišmaš, P., Plesničar, V., and Šuligoj, T.. 2018. Surviving sluicing. In Lenertová, D., Meyer, R., Šimík, R., and Szucsich, L. (eds.), Advances in Formal Slavic Linguistics 2016, 193–215. Berlin: Language Science Press. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2545523.Google Scholar
Menéndez-Benito, P. 2005. The Grammar of Choice. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations/AAI3193926.Google Scholar
Meyer, R. 2017. The C system of relatives and complement clauses in the history of Slavic languages. Language 93(2): e97–e113. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2017.0032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mihoc, T. 2021. Aspectual Operators: Temporality, Evaluativity, and Polarity Sensitivity. Ms., Canonical. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/006213.Google Scholar
Mitrenina, O. V. 2012. The syntax of pseudo-correlative constructions with the pronoun kotoryj (“which”) in Middle Russian. Slověne 1(1): 61–73. https://doi.org/10.31168/2305-6754.2012.1.1.4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitrović, M. 2016. A relative syntax and semantics for Slovenian. In Marušič, F. and Žaucer, R. (eds.), Formal Studies in Slovenian Syntax: In Honor of Janez Orešnik, 221–252. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.236.10mit.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Packard, J. L. 1988. The first language acquisition of prenominal modification with de in Mandarin. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 16(1): 31–54.Google Scholar
Pancheva Izvorski, R. 2000. Free Relatives and Related Matters. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. https://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI9965537.Google Scholar
Pankau, A. 2018. The matching analysis of relative clauses: An argument from anti-pronominal contexts. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 21(2): 189–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-018-9097-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, G., and Caponigro, I.. 2016. The puzzling degraded status of who free relative clauses in English. English Language and Linguistics 20(2): 341–352. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674315000325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, D. 2007. Russian case morphology and the syntactic categories. Paper presented at the Leipzig-Harvard Workshop on Morphology and Argument Encoding. Ms., MIT. https://home.uni-leipzig.de/jtrommer/Harvard/pesetsky.pdf.Google Scholar
Polian, G., and Aissen, J.. 2021. Headless relative clauses in Tseltalan. In Caponigro, et al. (eds.), 403–443. https://people.ucsc.edu/~aissen/PUBLICATIONS/headless.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2015. Tsez Syntax: A Description. Ms., University of Maryland. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002315.Google Scholar
Probert, P. 2015. Early Greek Relative Clauses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, G. 1997. Questions, polarity, and alternative semantics. In NELS 27: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, 383–396. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Rawlins, K. 2013. (Un)conditionals. Natural Language Semantics 40(2): 111–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-012-9087-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reilly, J. S. 1982. The Acquisition of Conditionals in English. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Reilly, J. S. 1986. The acquisition of temporals and conditionals. In Traugott, E. C., ter Meulen, A., Reilly, J. S., and Ferguson, C. A. (eds.), On Conditionals, 309–331. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T. 1998. Wh-in-situ in the framework of the Minimalist Program. Natural Language Semantics 6(1): 29–56. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008240014550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Riemsdijk, H. 2017. Free relatives. In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd ed., ch. 116. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom116.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar: A Handbook of Generative Syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2001. On the position of “int(errogative)” in the left periphery of the clause. In Cinque, G. and Salvi, G. (eds.), Current Studies in Italian Syntax: Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi, 267–296. Oxford: Elsevier North-Holland.Google Scholar
Romero, M., and Meertens, E.. 2022. Q-particles and islands in Sinhala wh- and polar questions. Acta Linguistica Academica 69(1): 104–127. https://doi.org/10.1556/2062.2022.00470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudin, C. 2009. The Bulgarian relative marker -to. In Franks, S., Chidambaram, V., and Joseph, B. (eds.), A Linguist’s Linguist: Studies in South Slavic Linguistics in Honor of E. Wayles Browne, 403–422. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Ruys, E. 2023. On the semantics of wh-. In Onoeva, M., Staňková, A., and Šimík, R. (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 27, 554–570. Prague: Charles University. https://doi.org/10.18148/sub/2023.v27.1086.Google Scholar
Rybová, M. 2023. Die Beziehung zwischen Evaluativität und Indefinitheit am Beispiel der zusammengesetzten Indefinitpronomina im Tschechischen. PhD dissertation, University of Regensburg / Charles University, Prague.Google Scholar
Sabel, J. 1998. Principles and Parameters of Wh-Movement. PhD. thesis, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University.Google Scholar
Salzmann, M. 2019. A new version of the matching analysis of relative clauses: Combining deletion under recoverability with vehicle change. In Krifka, M. and Schenner, M. (eds.), Reconstruction Effects in Relative Clauses [Studia Grammatica 75], 187–224. Berlin: de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783050095158-006.Google Scholar
Schwartz, A. 1971. General aspects of relative clause formation. In Working Papers on Language Universals 6, 139–171. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED094567.Google Scholar
Sharma, V. 1974. A Linguistic Study of Speech Development in Early Childhood. PhD dissertation, Agra University.Google Scholar
Siegel, J. 2019. The relative pronoun strategy: New data from southern New Guinea. Studies in Language 43(4): 997–1014. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.18040.sie.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Šimík, R. 2008. Specificity in (Czech) relative clauses. In Witkoś, J. and Fanselow, G. (eds.), Elements of Slavic and Germanic Grammars: A Comparative View, 177–198. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Šimík, R. 2009. Hamblin pronouns in modal existential wh-constructions. In Babyonyshev, M., Kavitskaya, D., and Reich, J. (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL) 17: The Yale Meeting 2008, 187–202. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Šimík, R. 2011. Modal Existential Wh-Constructions. PhD dissertation, University of Groningen. www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/269_fulltext.pdf.Google Scholar
Šimík, R. 2013. Modal existential wh-constructions as affordance descriptions. In Chemla, E., Homer, V., and Winterstein, G. (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 17, 563–580. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/Dk3NGEwY/Simik.pdf.Google Scholar
Šimík, R. 2016. On the semantics of Czech free relatives. In Ziková, M. and Caha, P. (eds.), Linguistica Brunensia 64/1: Festschrift for Petr Karlík, 109–129. Brno: Masaryk University. https://hdl.handle.net/11222.digilib/135453.Google Scholar
Šimík, R. 2018. Ever free relatives crosslinguistically. In Sauerland, U. and Solt, S. (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 22, vol. 2, 375–392. Berlin: Leibniz-Center General Linguistics. https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/112.Google Scholar
Šimík, R. 2020. Doubling unconditionals and relative sluicing. Natural Language Semantics 28(1): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-019-09157-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Šimík, R. 2021. Free relatives. In Gutzmann, D., Matthewson, L., Meier, C., Rullmann, H., and Zimmermann, T. E. (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Semantics, vol. 2, 1033–1070. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118788516.sem093.Google Scholar
Šimík, R., Matiasovitsová, K., and Smolík, F.. 2023. From correlativization to relativization: A view from Czech L1-acquisition. In Gappmayr, P. and Kellogg, J. (eds.), BUCLD 47: Proceedings of the 47th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, vol. 2, 702–714. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. www.lingref.com/bucld/47/BUCLD47-56.pdf.Google Scholar
Šimík, R. K. Matiasovitsová, and Smolík, F.. 2024. Wh-word acquisition in Czech: Exploring the growing trees hypothesis. Language Acquisition. https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2024.2366804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sportiche, D. 2005. Division of labor between merge and move: Strict locality of selection and apparent reconstruction paradoxes. In Proceedings of the Workshop Divisions of Linguistic Labor, The La Bretesche Workshop, UCLA.Google Scholar
Srivastav, V. 1991a. Subjacency effects at LF: The case of Hindi wh. Linguistic Inquiry 22(4): 762–769. www.jstor.org/stable/4178751.Google Scholar
Srivastav, V. 1991b. The syntax and semantics of correlatives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9(4): 637–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starke, M. 2001. Move Dissolves into Merge: A Theory of Locality. PhD dissertation, University of Geneva. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000002.Google Scholar
Starke, M. 2009. Nanosyntax: A short primer to a new approach to language. In Svenonius, P., Ramchand, G., Starke, M., and Taraldsen, K. T. (eds.), Tromsø Working Papers on Language and Linguistics: Nordlyd 36.1 [Special issue on nanosyntax], 1–6. Tromsø: CASTL. www.ub.uit.no/baser/nordlyd.Google Scholar
Starke, M. 2018. Complex left branches, spellout, and prefixes. In Baunaz, L., Haegeman, L., De Clercq, K., and Lander, E. (eds.), Exploring Nanosyntax, 239–249. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190876746.003.0009.Google Scholar
Stepanov, A. 1998. On wh-fronting in Russian. In Tamayi, P. and Kusumoto, K. (eds.), NELS 28: Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, 453–467. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. 2019. Unconditionals and free choice unified. In Blake, K., Davis, F., Lamp, K., and Rhyne, J. (eds.), SALT 29: Proceedings of the 29th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, 320–340. Washington, DC: Linguistic Society of America. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v29i0.4616.Google Scholar
Thornton, R. 2016. Acquisition of questions. In Lidz, J. L., Snyder, W., and Pater, J. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Developmental Linguistics, 310–340. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199601264.013.14.Google Scholar
Tredinnick, V. 2005. On the Semantics of Free Relatives with -ever. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Urbańczyk, S. 1935. Wyparcie staropolskiego względnego jen, jenze przez pier pierwotniepytajne który [Rozpray wydziału filologicznego 65]. Nakład Polskiej Akademji Umiejętności.Google Scholar
de Vries, M. 2002. The Syntax of Relativization. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam. www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/053_fulltext.pdf.Google Scholar
de Vries, M. 2005. The fall and rise of universals on relativization. Journal of Universal Language 6(1): 125–157. https://doi.org/10.22425/jul.2005.6.1.125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiland, B. 2009. Aspects of Order Preservation in Polish and English. PhD dissertation, University of Poznań. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000906.Google Scholar
Wiland, B. 2018. A note on lexicalizing ‘what’ and ‘who’ in Russian and Polish. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 54(4): 573–604. https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2018-0023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiang, Y. 2021. A hybrid categorial approach to question composition. Linguistics and Philosophy 44(3): 587–647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-020-09294-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yagi, Y. 2022. Unifying concessives and unconditionals in Japanese. In Benz, J. and Chen, Y. (eds.), University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 28(1): Proceedings of the 45th Annual Penn Linguistics Conference, Article 24. Philadelphia, PA: Penn Graduate Linguistics Society. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol28/iss1/24.Google Scholar
Yanovich, I. 2005. Choice-functional series of indefinites and Hamblin semantics. In Georgala, E. and Howell, J. (eds.), SALT 15: Proceedings from the 15th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 309–326. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v15i0.2921.Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, H. 2004. Sentential Negation and Negative Concord. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam dissertation. www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/101_fulltext.pdf.Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, H. 2007. Modal concord is syntactic agreement. In Friedman, T. and Gibson, M. (eds.), SALT 17: Proceedings from the 17th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 317–332. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, M. 2018. Embedded questions and concealed relative questions in Hausa and Akan. In Bogal-Allbritten, E. and Coppock, E. (eds.), Proceedings of TripleA 4, 1–16. Tübingen: University of Tübingen. https://doi.org/10.15496/publikation-24505.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.2 AAA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The PDF of this book
complies with version 2.2 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), offering more comprehensive accessibility measures for a broad range
of users and attains the highest
(AAA)
level of WCAG compliance, optimising the user experience by meeting the most extensive
accessibility guidelines.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
Visual Accessibility
Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.