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 IV - Comparative Syntax: Interfaces
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. 867 - 1068Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
References
Abe, J. 2015. The in-situ Approach to Sluicing [Linguistik Aktuell 222]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abels, K. 2019. On “sluicing” with apparent massive pied-piping. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37(4): 1205–1271. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049–018-9432-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abels, K., and Dayal, V.. 2023. On the syntax of multiple sluicing and what it tells us about wh-scope taking. Linguistic Inquiry. 54(3): 429–477. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abrusán, M. 2011a. Presuppositional and negative islands: A semantic account. Natural Language Semantics 19: 257–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-010-9064-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abrusán, M. 2011b. Wh-islands in degree questions: A semantic approach. Semantics and Pragmatics 4(Article 5): 1–44. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.4.5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abrusán, M. 2014. Weak Island Semantics. [Oxford Studies in Semantics and Pragmatics 3]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C. 2004. The Structure and Real-Time Comprehension of Quantifier Scope Ambiguity. PhD dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.Google Scholar
Aoun, J., and Li, Y.-H. A.. 1989. Scope and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 141–172.Google Scholar
Aoun, J., and Li, Y.-H. A.. 2003. Essays on the Representational and Derivational Nature of Grammar: The Diversity of Wh-Constructions [Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 40]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bai, X., and Takahashi, D.. 2024. Pair-list interpretation in multiple sluicing in Mandarin Chinese. Linguistic Inquiry 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, C. L. 1970. Notes on the description of English questions: The role of an abstract question morpheme. Foundations of Language 6: 197–219.Google Scholar
Baltin, M. 1987. Do antecedent contained deletions exist? Linguistic Inquiry 18: 579–595.Google Scholar
Barss, A. 2000. Minimalism and asymmetric wh-interpretation. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., and Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by Step, 31–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Beghelli, F., and Stowell, T.. 1997. Distributivity and negation: The syntax of each and every. In Szabolcsi, A. (ed.), Ways of Scope Taking, 71–107. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. 1978. Asking more than one thing at a time. In Hiz, H. (ed.), Questions, 107–150. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 1997. Superiority effects with multiple wh-fronting in Serbo-Croatian. Lingua 102: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2001. On the interpretation of multiple questions. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 1: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breheny, R. 2003. Exceptional-scope indefinites and domain restriction. In Proceedings of the Conference Sinn und Bedeutung 7, 38–52.Google Scholar
Bruening, B. 2001. QR obeys superiority: Frozen scope and ACD. Linguistic Inquiry 32(2): 233–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cable, S. 2010. The Grammar of Q: Q-Particles, Wh-Movement and Pied-Piping. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calabrese, A. 1984. Multiple questions and focus in Italian. In de Geest, W. and Putseys, Y. (eds.), Sentential Complementation, 67–74. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callegari, E. 2016. Multiple wh-questions and the root-embedded asymmetry. In Veselovská, L., Parrott, J. K, and Janebová, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Eastern European Conference in Linguistics for Postgraduate Students, 34–42. Palacký University, Czech Republic. http://cecils.upol.cz/proceedings2015.pdf.Google Scholar
Cheng, L. L. S., and Demirdache, H.. 2010. Trapped at the edge: On long-distance pair-list readings. Lingua 120(3): 463–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G. 1993. Questions with quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics 1(3): 181–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifton, C. Jr., Fanselow, G., and Frazier, L.. 2006. Amnestying superiority violations: Processing multiple questions. Linguistic Inquiry 37(1): 51–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cole, P. ,and Hermon, G.. 1998. The typology of wh-movement. Wh-questions in Malay. Syntax 1(3): 221–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comorovski, I. 1996. Interrogative Phrases and the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cortés Rodríguez, Á. to appear. Which linguist which structure: An experimental investigation of multiple sluicing in English. In Konietzko, A. and Winkler, S. (eds.), Information Structure and Discourse in Generative Grammar. Mechanisms and Processes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W, and Rochemont, M.. 1990. Extraposition and the complement principle. Linguistic Inquiry 21(1): 23–47.Google Scholar
Dayal, V. 1994. Scope marking as indirect wh-dependency. Natural Language Semantics 2(2): 137–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayal, V. 1996. Locality in Wh Quantification: Questions and Relative Clauses in Hindi. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayal, V. 2013. The syntax of scope and quantification. In den Dikken, M. (ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dayal, V. 2016. Questions [Oxford Surveys in Semantics and Pragmatics 4]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayal, V. 2017. Multiple wh-questions. In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd revised ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dayal, V. 2019. Singleton indefinites and the Privacy Principle: Certain puzzles. In Altshuler, D. and Rett, J. (eds.), The Semantics of Focus, Plurals, Degrees and Times: Essays in Honor of Roger Schwarzschild, 57–80. Cham: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayal, V. In prep. Wh Scope Taking in Questions [Linguistic Inquiry Monograph]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dayal, V., and Alok, D.. 2017. Scope marking at the syntax–semantics interface. In Aronoff, M. (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Elliott, P. D., Nicolae, A. C, and Sauerland, U.. 2022. Who and what do who and what range over cross-linguistically? Journal of Semantics 39(3): 551–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engdahl, E. 1986. Constituent Questions: The Syntax and Semantics of Questions with Special Reference to Swedish. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Farkas, D. 1981. Quantifier scope and syntactic islands. In Hendrick, R., Masek, C., and Miller, M. F. (eds.), Papers from the 17th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 59–66. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Farkas, D. 1994. Specificity and scope. In Nash, L. and Tsoulas, G. (eds.), Actes du premier colloque langues et grammaire 119–137. Paris.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. 2005. Universals and grammaticality: wh-constraints in German and English. Linguistics 43(4): 667–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fedorenko, E., and Gibson, E.. 2010. Adding a third Wh-phrase does not increase the acceptability of object-initial multiple-wh-questions. Syntax 13(3): 183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. D., and Sag, I. A.. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 355–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, D. 2012. The Semantics of Questions. Ms., MIT. http://lingphil.mit.edu/papers/fox/firstclass.pdf.Google Scholar
Fukaya, T. 2012. Island-sensitivity in Japanese sluicing and some implications. In Merchant, J. and Simpson, A. (eds.), Sluicing: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives [Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 38], 123–163. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, B. R. 2011. Question Embedding and the Semantics of Answers. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., and Thomas, J.. 1999. Memory limitations and structural forgetting: The perception of complex ungrammatical sentences as grammatical. Language and Cognitive Processes 14(3): 225–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/016909699386293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, J. 1986. Subjacency and the s/s′ parameter. Linguistic Inquiry 17(2): 364–369.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, J., and Roelofsen, F.. 2009. Inquisitive semantics and pragmatics. In Larrazabal, J. M. and Zubeldia, L. (eds.), Meaning, Content, and Argument: Proceedings of the ILCLI International Workshop on Semantics, Pragmatics and Rhetoric, 41–72. University of the Basque Country Publication Service.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, J., and Stokhof, M.. 1984. Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Hamblin, C. L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10: 41–53.Google Scholar
Heck, F. 2008. On Pied-Piping: Wh-Movement and Beyond. [Studies in Generative Grammar 98]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heck, F. 2009. On certain properties of pied-piping. Linguistic Inquiry 40(1): 75–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, I., and Kratzer, A.. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heusinger, K. von. 2011. Specificity. In Portner, P. H., Maienborn, C., and von Heusinger, K. (eds.), Handbook of Semantics, 2nd revised ed., vol. 2, 1025–1058. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J., and May, R.. 1981. Questions, quantifiers, and crossing. The Linguistic Review 1: 41–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiraiwa, K. 2021. Sluicing cannot apply in-situ in Japanese. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 6(1): 317–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiraiwa, K., and Ishihara, S.. 2002. Missing links: cleft, sluicing, and ‘no da’ construction in Japanese. In The Proceedings of Humit 2001 [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 43], 35–54. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. 1982a. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. 1982b. Move wh in a language without wh-movement. The Linguistic Review 1: 369–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, L. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 3–44.CrossRefGoogle 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
Lasnik, H., and Saito, M.. 1984. On the nature of proper government. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 235–289. [Reprinted in H. Lasnik, Essays on Restrictiveness and Learnability, 198–255. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1990.]Google Scholar
Lasnik, H., and Saito, M.. 1992. Move-α: Conditions on Its Application and Output. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lutz, U., Müller, G., and von Stechow, A. (eds.). 2000. Wh-Scope Marking. [Linguistik aktuell 37]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahajan, A. 1990. The A/A-Bar Distinction and Movement Theory. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Marušič, F., and Žaucer, R.. 2013. A note on sluicing and island repair. In Franks, S. (ed.), Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, the Third Indiana Meeting 2012 [Michigan Slavic Materials 59], 176–189. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Montague, R. 1974. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In Thomason, R. H. (ed.), Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague, 247–270. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, A. 2017. Toward a unified theory of wh-in-situ and islands. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 26: 189–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishigauchi, T. 1990. Quantification in the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishigauchi, T. 1998. “Multiple sluicing” in Japanese and the functional nature of wh-phrases. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7(2): 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, J. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement [Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 43]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ott, D., and Struckmeier, V.. 2018. Particles and deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 49(2): 393–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pankau, A. 2014. Replacing Copies: The Syntax of wh-Copying in German. PhD dissertation, University of Utrecht [LOT doctoral dissertations].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, D. 1987. Wh-in situ: Movement and unselective binding. In Reuland, E. J. and ter Meulen, A. G. B. (eds.), The Representation of (In)definiteness, 98–129. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. 2000. Phrasal Movement and Its Kin [Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 37]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raţiu, D. 2011. De la syntaxe à la sémantique des propositions interrogatives. étude comparative des questions multiples en Roumain. PhD dissertation, University of Nantes.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. 1997. Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 335–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T. 1998. Wh-in-situ in the framework of the Minimalist Program. Natural Language Semantics 6(1): 29–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Riemsdijk, H. 1982. Correspondence effects and the empty category principle. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 12.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1980a. Nominative marking in Italian infinitives and the nominative island constraint. In Heny, F. (ed.), Binding and Filtering, 129–157. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1980b. Violations of the wh-island constraint and the subjacency condition. Journal of Italian Linguistics 5: 157–195.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. 1969. Guess who? In Binnick, R. I., Davison, A., Green, G. M., and Morgan, J. L. (eds.), Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 252–286. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Rudin, C. 1988. On multiple questions and multiple wh-fronting. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6: 445–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabel, J. 2000. Partial wh-movement and the typology of wh-questions. In Lutz, et al. (eds.), 409–446.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, R. 2002. Singleton indefinites. Journal of Semantics 19(3): 289–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scontras, G., Polinsky, M., Tsai, C.-Y. E., and Mai, K. 2017. Cross-linguistic scope ambiguity: When two systems meet. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1): 36. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.198.Google Scholar
Spector, B., and Egré, P.. 2015. A uniform semantics for embedded interrogatives: An answer, not necessarily the answer. Synthese 192(6): 1729–1784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, J., Caponigro, I., Greco, C., and Cecchetto, C.. 2016. Experimental syntax and the variation of island effects in English and Italian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34: 307–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stepanov, A. 2007. The end of CED? Minimalism and extraction domains. Syntax 10(1): 80–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surányi, B. 2002. Multiple Operator Movements in Hungarian. PhD dissertation, University of Utrecht [LOT dissertations].Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A., and Zwarts, F.. 1992. Weak islands and an algebraic semantics for scope taking. Natural Language Semantics 1(3): 235–284.Google Scholar
Takahashi, D. 1994. Sluicing in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3(3): 265–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilder, C. 1997. Phrasal movement in LF: de re readings, VP ellipsis and binding. In Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, vol. 27, 425–439. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, M. 1997. D-linking, scrambling and superiority in German. Groninger Arbeiten zu germanistischen Linguistik 41: 107–142.Google Scholar
Winter, Y. 1997. Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 399–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiang, Y. 2023. Quantifying into wh-dependencies: Multiple-wh-questions and questions with a quantifier. Linguistics and Philosophy. 46(3): 429–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, P., and Gao, L.. 2009. Scope processing in Chinese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 38: 11–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
References
Adger, D., Béjar, S., and Harbour, D.. 2001. Allomorphy: Adjacency and Agree. Paper presented at the 23rd Glow Colloquium, Braga, Portugal.Google Scholar
Adger, D., Béjar, S., and Harbour, D.. 2003. Directionality of allomorphy: A reply to Carstairs-McCarthy. Transactions of the Philological Society 101(1): 109–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Kramer, R., Marantz, A., and Oltra-Massuet, I. (eds.). To appear. The Cambridge Handbook of Distributed Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Andersen, T. 1992. Morphological stratification in Dinka. Studies in African Linguistics 23(1): 1–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, T. 1993. Vowel quality alternation in Dinka verb inflection. Phonology 10(1): 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, S. 1992. Amorphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, M. 1994. Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Arregi, K., and Pietraszko, A.. 2021. The ups and downs of head displacement. Linguistic Inquiry 52(2): 241–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baerman, M., and Palancar, E. L.. 2014. The organization of Chinantec tone paradigms. In Carnets de Grammaire 22: Proceedings of Les Décembrettes, 8th International Conference on Morphology, 46–59. Toulouse: CLLE-ERSS.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 1985. The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 373–416.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 2008. The macroparameter in a microparameter world. In Biberauer, T. (ed.), The Limits of Syntactic Variation, 351–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bennett, R., Elfner, E., and McCloskey, J.. 2016. Lightest to the right: An apparently anomalous displacement in Irish. Linguistic Inquiry 47(2): 169–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berwick, R., and Chomsky, N.. 2011. The biolinguistic program: The current state of its evolution and development. In di Sciullo, A. and Boeckx, C. (eds.), The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of Human Language, 19–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bjorkman, B. M. To appear. Verbal inflection in Distributed Morphology. In Alexiadou, et al. (eds.).Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D. 2002. Realizing Germanic inflection: Why morphology does not drive syntax. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 6(2): 129–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, H. 1984. Parametric Syntax: Case Studies in Semitic and Romance Languages. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, H. 2013. Structuring Sense: vol. III: Taking Form. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bye, P., and Svenonius, P.. 2012. Non-concatenative morphology as epiphenomenon. In Trommer, J. (ed.), The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence 427–495. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R. and Rosenbaum, P. (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184–221. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1992. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca “Julio de Urquijo”: 53–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S. (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, 89–156. 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. 2011. Language and other cognitive systems: What is special about language? Language Learning and Development 7(4): 263–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N., and Halle, M.. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Embick, D. 2000. Features, syntax and categories in the Latin perfect. Linguistic Inquiry 31(2): 185–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, D. 2007. Linearization and local dislocation: Derivational mechanics and interactions. Linguistic Analysis 33(3–4): 303–336.Google Scholar
Embick, D. 2010a. Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, D. 2010b. Stem Alternations and Stem Distributions. Ms., University of Pennsylvania. www.ling.upenn.edu/~embick/stem-ms-10.pdf.Google Scholar
Embick, D. 2015. The Morpheme: A Theoretical Introduction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, D. 2016. On the targets of phonological realization. In Gribanova, V. and Shih, S. (eds.), The Morphosyntax/Phonology Connection, 255–283. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Embick, D. 2021. The motivation for Roots in Distributed Morphology. Annual Review of Linguistics 7(1): 69–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, D. To appear. Abstract morphemes and local contexts. In Alexiadou, et al. (eds.).Google Scholar
Embick, D., and Marantz, A.. 2008. Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39(1): 1–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, D., and Noyer, R.. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32(4): 555–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, D., and Shwayder, K.. 2018. Deriving morphophonological (mis)applications. In Petrosino, R., Cerrone, P., and van der Hulst, H. (eds.), From Sounds to Structures: Beyond the Veil of Maya, 194–248. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fenger, P. 2020. Words within Words: The Internal Syntax of Verbs. PhD thesis, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Halle, M., and Marantz, A.. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S. (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harbour, D. 2008. Morphosemantic Number: From Kiowa Noun Classes to UG Number Features. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Haugen, J. D., and Siddiqi, D.. 2016. Toward a restricted realizational theory. In Siddiqi, D. and Harley, H. (eds.), Morphological Metatheory, 343–386. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoberman, R. D., and Aronoff, M.. 2003. The verbal morphology of Maltese. In Shimron, J. (ed.), Language Processing and Acquisition in Languages of Semitic, Root-Based, Morphology, 61–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. 2018. The Minimalist Program after 25 years. Annual Review of Linguistics 4: 49–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. 2019. The stupendous success of the Minimalist Program. In Kertész, A., Moravcsik, E., and Rákosi, C. (eds.), Current Approaches to Syntax: a Comparative Handbook [Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics], 187–214. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingason, A. K. 2016. Realizing Morphemes in the Icelandic Noun Phrase. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Kalin, L., and Weisser, P.. To appear. Minimalism and morphology. In Grohmann, K. and Leivada, E. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1982. Lexical morphology and phonology. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm: Selected Essays from SICOL-1981, 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Koeneman, O., and Zeijlstra, H.. 2014. The rich agreement hypothesis rehabilitated. Linguistic Inquiry 45(4): 571–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leumann, M., Hofmann, J. B., and Szantyr, A.. 1963. Lateinische Grammatik, auf der Grundlage des Werkes von Friedrich Stolz und Joseph Hermann Schmalz; 1. Band lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre. Munich: Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. 1987. An Integrated Theory of Autosegmental Processes. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.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. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, A. 1995. The Minimalist Program. In Webelhuth, G. (ed.), Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program, 4349–4382. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 2001. Words and things. Ms., MIT. https://babel.ucsc.edu/~hank/mrg.readings/Marantz_words.pdf.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 2007. Phases and words. In Choe, S. H. (ed.), Phases in the Theory of Grammar, 199–222. Seoul: Dong-In Publishing.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 2013. Locality domains for contextual allomorphy across the interfaces. In Matushansky, O. and Marantz, A. (eds.), Distributed Morphology Today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, 95–116. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newell, H., and Ulfsbjorninn, S.. 2021. Phonological solutions to morphological problems. The Linguistic Review 38(3): 321–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noyer, R. 1992. Features, Affixes, and Positions in Autonomous Morphological Structure. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.Google Scholar
Rohrbacher, B. 1999. Morphology-Driven Syntax: A Theory of V to I Raising and Pro-Drop. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saab, A. 2022. Bleeding Restructuring by Ellipsis: New Hopes for a Motivated Verbal Ellipsis Parameter. Ms., Universidad de Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
Wood, J. 2015. Icelandic Morphosyntax and Argument Structure. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Abeillé, A., and Godard, D.. 2003. French adverbs without functional projections. In Coene, M. et al. (eds.), Current Studies in Comparative Romance Linguistics, 1–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Abels, K. 2016. The fundamental left–right asymmetry in the Germanic verb cluster. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 19: 179–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abels, A., and Neeleman, A.. 2009. Universal 20 without the LCA. In Brucart, J. M. et al. (eds.), Merging Features: Computation, Interpretation, and Acquisition, 60–79. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abels, K., and Neeleman, A.. 2012. Linear asymmetries and the LCA. Syntax 15: 25–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abels, K., and Neeleman, A.. 2023. e. Ms., University College London. https://lingbuzz.net/lingbuzz/007739.Google Scholar
Aboh, E. 2004. The Morphosyntax of Complement-Head Sequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackema, P., and Neeleman, A.. 2002. Effects of short-term storage in processing rightward movement. In Nooteboom, S. et al. (eds.), Storage and Computation in the Language Faculty, 219–256. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackema, P., and Neeleman, A.. 2004. Beyond Morphology: Interface Conditions on Word Formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alrenga, P. 2005. A sentential subject asymmetry in English and its implications for complement selection. Syntax 8: 175–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbiers, S. 1995. The Syntax of Interpretation. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Barker, C. 2009. Reconstruction as delayed evaluation. In Hinrichs, E. and Nerbonne, J. (eds.), Theory and Evidence in Semantics, 1–28. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Barker, C. 2012. Quantificational binding does not require c-command. Linguistic Inquiry 43: 614–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, C., and Shan, C.-C.. 2008. Donkey anaphora as in-scope binding. Semantics and Pragmatics 1: 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belk, Z., and Neeleman, A.. 2017. AP-adjacency as a precedence constraint. Linguistic Inquiry 48: 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., and Roberts, I.. 2007. Disharmonic word-order systems and the Final-Over-Final Constraint (FOFC). In Bisetto, A. and Barbieri, F. (eds.), Proceedings of Incontro di Grammatica Generativa 33, 86–105.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., and Roberts, I.. 2008. Structure and linearization in disharmonic word orders. In Chang, C. B. and Haynie, H. J. (eds.), Proceedings of the Western Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 26, 96–104.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., and Roberts, I.. 2014. A syntactic universal and its consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 45: 169–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruening, B. 2001. QR obeys superiority: ACD and frozen scope. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 233–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruening, B., and Al Khalaf, E.. 2016. Linear effects in ATB movement. In Farrell, P. (ed.), Proceedings of the Linguistics Society of America 1, article 10:1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruening, B., and Al Khalaf, E.. 2020. Category mismatches in coordination revisited. Linguistic Inquiry 51: 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carden, G. 1982. Backwards anaphora in discourse context. Journal of Linguistics 18: 361–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, L., and Downing, L.. 2012. Against FocusP: Evidence from Durban Zulu. In Kučerová, I. and Neeleman, A. (eds.), Contrasts and Positions in Information Structure, 247–266. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. 1996. The “Antisymmetric” Programme: Theoretical and typological implications. Journal of Linguistics 32: 447–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. 2005. Deriving Greenberg’s Universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 315–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. 2009. The fundamental left-right asymmetry of natural languages. In Scalise, S. et al. (eds.), Universals of Language Today, 165–184. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. 2010. The Syntax of Adjectives: A Comparative Study. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. 2014. On the Movement Account of Greenberg’s Universal 20: Refinements and Replies. Ms., University of Venice.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 2023. Linearization: Toward a Restrictive Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, J., and Kula, N.. 2008. Focus at the interface: Evidence from Romance and Bantu. In de Cat, C. and Demuth, K. (eds.), The Bantu–Romance Connection, 293–322. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creider, C. 1989. The Syntax of the Nilotic Languages. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.Google Scholar
Culbertson, J., and Newport, E. L.. 2015. Harmonic biases in child learners: In support of language universals. Cognition 139: 71–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Culbertson, J., and Newport, E. L.. 2017. Innovation of word order harmony across development. Open Mind: Discoveries in Cognitive Science 1: 91–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Culbertson, J., Smolensky, P., and Legendre, G.. 2012. Learning biases predict a word order universal. Cognition 122: 306–329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Culbertson, J., Franck, J., Braquet, G., Barrera Navarro, M., and Arnon, I.. 2020. A learning bias for word order harmony: Evidence from speakers of non-harmonic languages. Cognition 204: 104392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Den Dikken, M. 2006. Relators and Linkers: The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion, and Copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dik, S. 1983. Two constraints on relators and what they can do for us. In Dik, S. (ed.), Advances in Functional Grammar, 267–298. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dik, S. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar Part 1: The Structure of the Clause. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. 1991. SVO languages and the OV:VO typology. Journal of Linguistics 27: 443–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. 2009. The branching direction theory of word order correlations revisited. In Scalise, S. et al. (eds.), Universals of Language Today, 185–207. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. 2012. On the position of interrogative phrases and the order of complementizer and clause. In Graf, T. et al. (eds.), Theories of Everything: In Honor of Ed Keenan [UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 17], 72–79. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. 2018. On the order of demonstrative, numeral, adjective and noun. Language 94: 798–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, D., and Noyer, R.. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 555–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, L. 1980. Parsing and constraints on word order. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 6, article 9:177–198.Google Scholar
Giurgea, I. 2009. Adjective placement and linearization. In van Craenenbroeck, J. (ed.), Alternatives to Cartography, 275–323. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J. (ed.), Universals of Human Language, 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 2005. How to turn German into Icelandic – and derive the OV–VO contrasts. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 8, 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpern, A. 1995. On the Morphology and the Placement of Clitics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. 1990. A parsing theory of word order universals. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 223–261.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. 1994. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. 2008. An asymmetry between VO and OV languages: The ordering of obliques. In Corbett, G. and Noonan, M. (eds.), Case and Grammatical Relations: Essays in Honor of Bernard Comrie, 167–190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. 2014. Cross-Linguistic Variation and Efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hein, J., and Murphy, A.. 2022. VP-nominalization and the Final-over-Final Condition. Linguistic Inquiry 53: 337–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, T. 1984. Transitivity: Grammatical Relations in GB-Theory. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. 2010. Focus marking in Aghem: Syntax or semantics? In Fiedler, I. and Schwartz, A. (eds.), Expression of Information Structure: A Documentation of Its Diversity across Africa, 95–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1990. On Larson’s treatment of the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 427–456.Google Scholar
Janke, V., and Neeleman, A.. 2012. Ascending and descending VPs in English. Linguistic Inquiry 43: 151–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerstens, J. 1975. Over afgeleide structuur en de interpretatie van zinnen. Ms., University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Keyser, S. J. 1968. Review of Sven Jacobson, Adverbial Positions in English. Language 44: 357–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knuth, D. 1968. The Art of Computer Programming, Vol. 1: Fundamental Algorithms. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Koster, J. 1978. Why subject sentences don’t exist. In Keyser, S. J. (ed.), Recent Transformational Studies in European Languages, 53–64. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1969. On pronominalization and the chain of command. In Reibel, D. A. and Schane, S. A. (eds.), Modern Studies in English, 160–186. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Larson, R. 1989. Light Predicate Raising [Lexicon Project Working Papers 27]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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. San Diego, CA: Brill Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medeiros, D. 2018. ULTRA: Universal Grammar as a universal parser. Frontiers in Psychology 9, article 155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moulton, K. 2013. Not moving clauses: Connectivity in clausal complements. Syntax 16: 250–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moulton, K., and Han, C.-H.. 2018. C-command vs. Scope: An experimental assessment of bound-variable pronouns. Language 94: 191–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nchare, A. L. 2012. The Grammar of Shupamem. Doctoral dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A. 2017. PP-over-V meets Universal 20. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 20: 3–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, A., and Payne, A.. 2020. PP extraposition and the order of adverbials in English. Linguistic Inquiry 51: 471–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, A., and Van de Koot, H.. 2022a. The interpretation and distribution of temporal focus particles. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 40: 793–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, A., and Van de Koot, H.. 2022b. PP extraposition and precedence. Linguistic Inquiry 53: 182–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevins, A., and Weisser, P.. 2018. Closest conjunct agreement. Annual Review of Linguistics 5: 219–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nissenbaum, J. 2000. Investigations of Covert Phrasal Movement. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Overfelt, J. 2015. Unbounded successive-cyclic rightward DP-movement. Lingua 162: 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partee, B., Ter Meulen, A., and Wall, R.. 1990. Mathematical Methods in Linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Pearson, M. 2007. Predicate Fronting and Constituent Order in Malagasy. Ms., Reed College, Portland, OR.Google Scholar
Philip, J. 2013. (Dis)harmony, the Head-Proximate Filter, and linkers. Journal of Linguistics 49: 165–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, C., and Wagers, M.. 2007. Relating structure and time in linguistics and psycholinguistics. In Gaskell, G. (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 739–756. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rijkhoff, J. 1984. The Principle of Head Proximity. MA dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. R. 1969. On the cyclic nature of English pronominalization. In Reibel, D. A. and Schane, S. A. (eds.), Modern Studies in English, 187–200. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Saito, M., and Fukui, N.. 1998. Order in phrase structure and movement. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 439–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shan, C.-C., and Barker, C.. 2006. Explaining crossover and superiority as left-to-right evaluation. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 91–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, M. 2017. The Final-Over-Final Condition and processing. In Sheehan, et al. (eds), 79–96.Google Scholar
Sheehan, M., Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., and Roberts, I. (eds.). 2017. The Final-Over-Final Condition: A Syntactic Universal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steedman, M. 2020. A formal universal of natural language grammar. Language 96: 618–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, P. 1994. The structural location of the attributive adjective. In Duncan, E. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 12th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 439–454. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Takahashi, S. 2010. The hidden side of clausal complements. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28: 343–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanden Wyngaerd, G. 1989. Object shift as an A-movement rule. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 11: 256–271.Google Scholar
Van der Wal, J. 2006. The disjoint verb form and an empty immediate after verb position in Makhuwa. In Papers in Bantu Grammar and Description, ZASPiL 43, 233–256.Google Scholar
Willer Gold, J., Arsenijević, B., Batinić, M., Becker, M., Čordalija, N., Kresić, M. … and Nevins, A.. 2018. When linearity prevails over hierarchy in syntax. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115: 495–500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zeijlstra, H. 2023. FOFC and what left-right asymmetries may tell us about syntactic structure building. Journal of Linguistics 59(1): 179–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwart, J.-W. 2009. Relevance of typology to Minimalist inquiry. Lingua 119: 1589–1606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Aarons, D. 1996. Topics and topicalization in American Sign Language. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 30: 65–106.Google Scholar
Abner, N. 2011. Wh-words that go bump in the right. In Washburn, M. B., McKinney-Bock, K., Varis, E., Sawyer, A., and Tomaszewicz, B. (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 24–32. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Aboh, E. O. 2004. The Morphosyntax of Complement-Head Sequences: Clause Structure and Word Order Patterns in Kwa. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aboh, E. O. 2010. The P route. In Cinque, G. and Rizzi, L. (eds.), Mapping Spatial PPs [The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 6], 225–260. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aboh, E. O. 2016. Creole distinctiveness: A dead end. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 31(2): 400–418.Google Scholar
Aboh, E. O., and Pfau, R.. 2010. What’s a wh-word got to do with it? In Benincà, P. and Munaro, N. (eds.), Mapping the Left Periphery: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 5, 91–124. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aboh, E. O., Pfau, R., and Zeshan, U.. 2005. When a wh-word is not a wh-word: The case of Indian Sign Language. In Bhattacharya, T. (ed.), The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 2005, 11–43. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Alba, C. 2016. Wh-Questions in Catalan Sign Language. PhD dissertation, Universitat Pompeu Fabra , Barcelona.Google Scholar
Asada, Y. 2019. General use coordination in Japanese and Japanese Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 22(1): 44–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, A., and van den Bogaerde, B.. 2008. Codemixing in signs and words in input to and output from children. In Plaza Pust, C. and Morales López, E. (eds.), Sign Bilingualism: Language Development, Interaction, and Maintenance in Sign Language Contact Situations, 1–27. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bouchard, D. 1997. Sign language & language universals: The status of order & position in grammar. Sign Language Studies 91: 101–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branchini, C. 2021. Relative clauses: Theoretical perspectives. In Quer, J., Pfau, R., and Herrmann, A. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Theoretical and Experimental Sign Language Research, 325–350. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branchini, C., and Donati, C.. 2009. Relatively different: Italian Sign Language relative clauses in a typological perspective. In Liptàk, A. (ed.), Correlatives Cross-Linguistically, 157–191. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branchini, C., and Donati, C.. 2016. Assessing lexicalism through bimodal eyes. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1(1): 48. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.29.Google Scholar
Branchini, C., Cardinaletti, A., Cecchetto, C., Donati, C., and Geraci, C.. 2013. Wh-duplication in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Sign Language & Linguistics 16(2): 157–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braze, D. 2004. Aspectual inflection, verb raising and object fronting in American Sign Language. Lingua 114: 29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bross, F. 2019. The Clausal Syntax of German Sign Language: A Cartographic Approach. Berlin: Language Science Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunelli, M. 2011. Antisymmetry and Sign Languages: A Comparison between NGT and LIS. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam [Utrecht: LOT Dissertations].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cecchetto, C., Geraci, C., and Zucchi, S.. 2009. Another way to mark syntactic dependencies. The case for right-peripheral specifiers in sign languages. Language 85(2): 278–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cecchetto, C., Checchetto, A., Geraci, C., Santoro, M., and Zucchi, S.. 2015. The syntax of predicate ellipsis in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Lingua 166: 214–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen Pichler, D. 2001. Word Order Variation and Acquisition in American Sign Language. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Chesi, C. In press. Linearization (as part of core syntax). In Grohmann, K. and Leivada, E. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coerts, J. 1994. Constituent order in Sign Language of the Netherlands and the functions of orientations. In Ahlgren, I., Bergman, B., and Brennan, M. (eds.), Perspectives on Sign Language Structure. Papers from the Fifth International Symposium on Sign Language Research, 69–88. Durham, NC: ISLA.Google Scholar
Cole, P. 1987. The structure of internally headed relative clauses. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5: 277–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulter, G. 1979. American Sign Language Typology. PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Coulter, G. R. 1983. A conjoined analysis of American Sign Language relative clauses. Discourse Processes 6: 305–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dachkovsky, S. 2008. Facial expression as intonation in Israeli Sign Language: The case of neutral and counterfactual conditionals. In Quer, J. (ed.), Signs of the Time. Selected Papers from TISLR 2004, 61–82. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Davidson, K. 2013. ‘And’ or ‘or’: General use coordination in ASL. Semantics and Pragmatics 6: 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, K., and Caponigro, I.. 2016. Embedding polar interrogative clauses in American Sign Language. In Pfau, et al. (eds.), 151–181.Google Scholar
De Quadros, R. M. 2003. Phrase structure of Brazilian Sign Language. In Baker, A., van den Bogaerde, B., and Crasborn, O. (eds.), Crosslinguistic Perspectives in Sign Language Research: Selected Papers from TISLR 2000, 141–161. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
De Vos, C., and Pfau, R.. 2015. Sign language typology: The contribution of rural sign languages. Annual Review of Linguistics 1: 265–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vries, M. 2009. On multidominance and linearization. Biolinguistics 3(4): 344–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donati, C. 2021. Bimodal bilingual grammars. In Quer, J., Herrmann, A., and Pfau, R. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Theoretical and Experimental Sign Language Research, 614–635. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. S. 2007. Word order. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. I: Clause Structure, 2nd ed., 61–131. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. S. 2013a. Order of subject, object and verb. In Dryer, M. S. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), WALS Online (v2020.3) [Dataset]. http://wals.info/chapter/81.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. S. 2013b. Position of interrogative phrases in content questions. In Dryer, M. S. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), WALS Online (v2020.3) [Dataset]. http://wals.info/chapter/93.Google Scholar
Edwards, T., and Brentari, D.. 2020. Feeling phonology: The conventionalization of phonology in protactile communities in the United States. Language 96(4): 819–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmorey, K., Borinstein, H. B., Thompson, R., and Gollan, T. H.. 2008. Bimodal bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 11(1): 43–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferrara, L., and Hodge, G.. 2018. Language as description, indication, and depiction. Frontiers in Psychology 9: 716.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fischer, S. 1974. Sign language and linguistic universals. In Rohrer, T. and Ruwet, N. (eds.), Actes de Colloque Franco-Allemand de Grammaire Transformationelle. II. Etudes de Sémantique et autres, 187–204. Tübingen: Niemeyer. [Reprinted 2008, Sign Language & Linguistics 11(2): 245–262.]Google Scholar
Fischer, S. 1975. Influences on word order change in American Sign Language. In Li, C. (ed.), Word Order and Word Order Change, 1–25. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, S., and Janis, W.. 1990. Verb sandwiches in American Sign Language. In Prillwitz, S. and Vollhaber, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the Forth International Symposium on Sign Language Research, 279–293. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Fornasiero, E. 2023. Evaluative Constructions in Italian Sign Language (LIS): A Multi-Theoretical Analysis. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, L. A. 1976. The manifestation of subject, object, and topic in the American Sign Language. In Li, C. N. (ed.), Subject and Topic, 125–148. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Geraci, C., and Aristodemo, V.. 2016. An in-depth tour into sentential complementation in Italian Sign Language. In Pfau, et al. (eds.), 95–150.Google Scholar
Gökgöz, K. 2021. Negation: Theoretical and experimental perspectives. In Quer, J., Pfau, R., and Herrmann, A. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Theoretical and Experimental Sign Language Research, 266–294. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Göksel, A., and Kelepir, M.. 2013. The phonological and semantic bifurcation of the functions of an articulator: HEAD in questions in Turkish Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 16(1): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Göksel, A., and Kelepir, M.. 2016. Observations on clausal complementation in Turkish Sign Language. In Pfau, et al. (eds.), 65–94.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 in Linguistics in Honour of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hartmann, K., Pfau, R., and Legeland, I.. 2021. Asymmetry and contrast: Coordination in Sign Language of the Netherlands. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 6(1): 101. https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5872.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2007. Coordination. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. II: Complex Constructions, 2nd ed., 1–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., and Fitch, W. T.. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298: 1569–1579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hauser, M. D., Yang, C., Berwick, R. C., Tattersall, I., Ryan, M. J., Watumull, J., Chomsky, N., and Lewontin, R. C.. 2014. The mystery of language evolution. Frontiers in Psychology 5, Article 401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Idsardi, W. J., and Raimy, E. In press. Linearization. In Grohmann, K. and Leivada, E. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Janzen, T. 1995. Differentiating topic from subjects in ASL. In Aubin, M.-C. (ed.), Perspectives d’Avenir en Traduction, 57–74. Winnipeg: Presses Universitaires de Saint-Boniface.Google Scholar
Johnston, T. 2003. BSL, Auslan and NZSL: Three signed languages or one? In Baker, A., van den Bogaerde, B., and Crasborn, O. (eds.), Cross-Linguistic Perspectives in Sign Language Research, 47–69. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. 1985. Relative clauses. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description. vol. II: Complex Constructions, 141–170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kelepir, M. 2021. Content interrogatives: Theoretical and experimental perspectives. In Quer, J., Pfau, R., and Herrmann, A. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Theoretical and Experimental Sign Language Research, 232–265. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khristoforova, E. 2023. Subject agreement in control and modal constructions in Russian Sign Language: Implications for the hierarchy of person features. Sign Language & Linguistics 26(1): 64–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimmelman, V. 2012. Word order in Russian Sign Language: An extended report. Linguistics in Amsterdam 5: 1–56.Google Scholar
Kimmelman, V. 2015. Topics and topic prominence in two sign languages. Journal of Pragmatics 87: 156–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimmelman, V. 2017. Linearization of weak hand holds in Russian Sign Language. Linguistics in Amsterdam 10(1): 28–59.Google Scholar
Kimmelman, V. 2019. Information Structure in Sign Languages. Evidence from Russian Sign Language and Sign Language of the Netherlands. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimmelman, V., and Pfau, R.. 2021. Information structure: theoretical perspectives. In Quer, J., Pfau, R., and Herrmann, A. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Theoretical and Experimental Sign Language Research, 591–613. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimmelman, V., Sáfár, A., and Crasborn, O.. 2016. Towards a classification of weak hand holds. Open Linguistics 2: 211–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klomp, U. 2019. Conditional clauses in Sign Language of the Netherlands: A corpus-based study. Sign Language Studies 19(3): 309–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubuş, O. 2016. Relative Clause Constructions in Turkish Sign Language. PhD dissertation, University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
Kuhn, J. 2021. Discourse anaphora: Theoretical perspectives. In Quer, J., Pfau, R., and Herrmann, A. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Theoretical and Experimental Sign Language Research, 458–479. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, H. 1995. Verbal morphology: Syntactic Structures meets the Minimalist Program. In Campos, H. and Kempchinsky, P. (eds.), Evolution and Revolution in Linguistic Theory, 251–275. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Laudanna, A., and Volterra, V.. 1991. Order of words, signs and gestures: A first comparison. Applied Psycholinguistics 12: 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legeland, I., Hartmann, K., and Pfau, R.. 2018. Word order asymmetries in NGT coordination: The impact of information structure. Formal and Experimental Advances in Sign Language Theory 2: 56–67. https://doi.org/10.31009/FEAST.i2.05.Google Scholar
Li, C., and Thompson, S.. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Li, C. and Thompson, S. (eds.), Subject and Topic, 456–489. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Liddell, S. K. 1978. Nonmanual signals and relative clauses in American Sign Language. In Siple, P. (ed.), Understanding Language through Sign Language Research, 59–90. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Liddell, S. K. 1986. Head thrust in ASL conditional sentences. Sign Language Studies 52: 243–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liddell, S. K. 2003. Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D. 1991. Universal Grammar and American Sign Language: Setting the Null Argument Parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D., and de Quadros, R. M.. 2008. Focus constructions in American Sign Language and Lingua de Sinais Brasileira. In Quer, J. (ed.), Signs of the Time. Selected Papers from TISLR 8, 161–176. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D., Koulidobrova, E., de Quadros, R. M., and Chen Pichler, D.. 2012. Bilingual language synthesis: Evidence from wh-questions in bimodal bilinguals. In Biller, A., Chung, E., and Kimball, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 302–314. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, D., de Quadros, R. M., and Chen Pichler, D.. 2016. The development of bimodal bilingualism: Implications for linguistic theory. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 6(6): 719–755.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lourenço, G., and de Quadros, R. M.. 2020. The syntactic structure of the clause in Brazilian Sign Language. In de Quadros, R. M. (ed.), Brazilian Sign Language Studies, 131–154. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, E., and Steinbach, M.. 2022. Perspective shift across modalities. Annual Review of Linguistics 8: 59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mantovan, L. 2015. Nominal Modification in Italian Sign Language (LIS). PhD dissertation, Ca’ Foscari University, Venice.Google Scholar
Matsuoka, K. 1997. Verb raising in American Sign Language. Lingua 103: 127–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McBurney, S. 2012. History of sign languages and sign language linguistics. In Pfau, et al. (eds.), 909–948.Google Scholar
MacSwan, J. 2000. The architecture of the bilingual language faculty: Evidence from intrasentential code switching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3: 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mesch, J. 2001. Tactile Sign Language: Turn Taking and Questions in Signed Conversations of Deaf-Blind People. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Minoura, N. 2008. Word order in Malagasy Sign Language. Tokyo Gaikokugo Daigaku Ron Shu Dai (Tokyo University of Foreign Studies Working Papers): 77, 47–69.Google Scholar
Morales-López, E., Reigosa-Varela, C., and Bobillo García, N.. 2011. Word order and informative function (topic and focus) in Spanish Signed Language utterances. Journal of Pragmatics 44(4): 474–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Napoli, D. J., and Sutton-Spence, R.. 2014. Order of the major constituents in sign languages: Implications for all language. Frontiers in Psychology 5, Article 376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neidle, C. 2002. Language across modalities: ASL focus and question constructions. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2: 71–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neidle, C., Kegl, J., MacLaughlin, D., Bahan, B., and Lee, R. G.. 2000. The Syntax of American Sign Language: Functional Categories and Hierarchical Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
NGC / Nederlands Gebarencentrum [Dutch Sign Center]. 2002. CDRom Basisgrammatica Nederlandse Gebarentaal. Bunnik & Amsterdam: NGC & UvA.Google Scholar
Nunes, J. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, J., and de Quadros, R. M.. 2006. Duplication of wh-elements in Brazilian Sign Language. In Bateman, L. and Ussery, C. (eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Conference of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, 463–478. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Nunes, J., and de Quadros, R. M.. 2008. Phonetically realized traces in American Sign Language and Brazilian Sign Language. In Quer, J. (ed.), Signs of the Time. Selected Papers from TISLR 8, 177–190. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Padden, C. 1983. Interaction of Morphology and Syntax in American Sign Language. PhD dissertation, University of California, San Diego. [Published 1988 by Garland Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics, New York.]Google Scholar
Paulus, L. 2021. Der Konditionalsatz in Deutscher Gebärdensprache (DGS) und Brasilianischer Gebärdensprache (Libras) – Eine empirische soziolinguistische Studie [The Conditional Clause in German Sign Language and Brazilian Sign Language – An Empirical Sociolinguistic Study]. PhD dissertation, Georg-August-University, Göttingen.Google Scholar
Perniss, P. 2007. Space and Iconicity in German Sign Language (DGS). PhD dissertation, University of Nijmegen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petronio, K., and Lillo-Martin, D.. 1997. Wh-movement and the position of Spec-CP: Evidence from American Sign Language. Language 73(1): 18–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pfau, R. 2016a. A featural approach to sign language negation. In Larrivée, P. and Lee, C. (eds.), Negation and Negative Polarity: Cognitive and Experimental Perspectives. 45–74. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfau, R. 2016b. Non-manuals and tones: A comparative perspective on suprasegmentals and spreading. Revista de Estudos Linguísticos da Universidade do Porto 11: 19–58.Google Scholar
Pfau, R., and Aboh, E. O.. 2012. On the syntax of spatial adpositions in sign languages. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 68: 83–104.Google Scholar
Pfau, R., and Quer, J.. 2010. Nonmanuals: Their grammatical and prosodic roles. In Brentari, D. (ed.), Sign Languages [Cambridge Language Surveys], 381–402. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfau, R., and Steinbach, M.. 2006. Relative clauses in German Sign Language: Extraposition and reconstruction. In Bateman, L. and Ussery, C. (eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Conference of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, 507–521. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., and Woll, B. (eds.). 2012. Sign Language: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfau, R., Steinbach, M., and Herrmann, A. (eds.). 2016. A Matter of Complexity: Subordination in Sign Languages. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.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
Quer, J. 2020. The expression of negation in sign languages. In Déprez, V. and Espinal, M. T. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Negation, 177–196. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quer, J. 2021. Verb agreement: Theoretical perspectives. In Quer, et al. (eds.), 95–121.Google Scholar
Quer, J., Pfau, R., and Herrmann, A. (eds.). 2021. The Routledge Handbook of Theoretical and Experimental Sign Language Research. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues, A., and Pfau, R.. 2023. Language prejudice and language structure: On missing and emerging conjunctions in Libras and other sign languages. In Massini-Cagliari, G., de Andrade Berlinck, R., and Rodrigues, A. (eds.), Understanding Linguistic Prejudice: Critical Approaches to Language Diversity in Brazil, 157–184. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sáfár, A., and Kimmelman, V.. 2015. Weak hand holds in two sign languages and two genres. Sign Language & Linguistics 18(2): 205–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinbach, M. 2021. Role shift: Theoretical perspectives. In Quer, et al. (eds.), 351–377.Google Scholar
Sze, F. Y. B. 2008. Topic Constructions in Hong Kong Sign Language. PhD dissertation, University of Bristol.Google Scholar
Sze, F. Y. B. 2015. Is Hong Kong Sign Language a topic-prominent language? Linguistics 53(4): 809–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, G., and Lau, P.. 2012. Coordination and subordination. In Pfau, et al. (eds.), 340–365.Google Scholar
Tang, G., Li, J., and He, J.. 2021. Classifiers: Theoretical perspectives. In Quer, et al. (eds.), 139–173.Google Scholar
Thompson, H. 1977. The lack of subordination in American Sign Language. In Friedman, L. A. (ed.), On the Other Hand: New Perspectives on American Sign Language, 181–195. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Van Gijn, I. 2004. The Quest for Syntactic Dependency. Sentential Complementation in Sign Language of the Netherlands. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam [Utrecht: LOT Dissertations].Google Scholar
Volterra, V., Laudanna, A., Corazza, S., Radutzky, E., and Natale, F.. 1984. Italian Sign Language: The order of elements in the declarative sentence. In Loncke, F., Boyes-Braem, P., and Lebrun, Y. (eds.), Recent Research on European Sign Language, 19–48. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Watson, K. L. 2010. Wh-Questions in American Sign Language: Contributions of Nonmanual Marking to Structure and Meaning. MA thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. B. 2011. Nonmanuals, semantic operators, domain marking and the solution to two outstanding puzzles in ASL. Sign Language & Linguistics 14(1): 148–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilbur, R. B. 2016. Preference for clause order in complex sentences with adverbial clauses in American Sign Language. In Pfau, et al. (eds.), 36–64.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. B. 2017. Internally-headed relative clauses in sign languages. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1): 25. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.183.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. B. 2021. Non-manual markers: Theoretical and experimental perspectives. In Quer, et al. (eds.), 530–565.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. B., and Patschke, C.. 1999. Syntactic correlates of brow raise in ASL. Sign Language & Linguistics 2: 3–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, S. 2004. Cognitive iconicity: Conceptual spaces, meaning, and gesture in signed languages. Cognitive Linguistics 15(2): 119–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, S. 2019. Signed languages. In Dabrowska, E. and Divjak, D. (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Key Topics, 251–274. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittmann, H. 1991. Classification linguistique des langues signées nonvocalement. Revue Québécoise de Linguistique Théorique et Appliquée: Les Langues Signées 10(1): 215–288.Google Scholar
Woll, B. 2003. Modality, universality and the similarities among sign languages: An historical perspective. In Baker, A., van den Bogaerde, B., and Crasborn, O. (eds.), Cross-Linguistic Perspectives in Sign Language Research, 17–27. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Woll, B, Sutton-Spence, R., and Elton, F.. 2001. Multilingualism: The global approach to sign languages. In Lucas, C. (ed.), The Sociolinguistics of Sign Languages, 8–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeshan, U. 2004. Interrogative constructions in sign languages: Cross-linguistic perspectives. Language 80(1): 7–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeshan, U. 2006. Interrogative and Negative Constructions in Sign Languages. Nijmegen: Ishara Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeshan, U., and Palfreyman, N.. 2017. Sign language typology. In Aikhenvald, A. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Typology, 178–216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeshan, U., and Palfreyman, N.. 2020. Comparability of signed and spoken languages: Absolute and relative modality effects in cross-modal typology. Linguistic Typology 24(3): 527–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, N. N. 2007. Universal 20 and Taiwan Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 10: 55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zorzi, G. 2018. Coordination and Gapping in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). PhD dissertation, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Aissen, J. 1999. Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 17: 673–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A. 2006. Left dislocation (including CLLD). In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, vol. 2, 668–699. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambar, M. 1999. Aspects of the syntax of focus in Portuguese. In Rebuschi, and Tuller, (eds.), 23–54.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, E. 1997. Clitic left dislocation and contrastive left dislocation. In Anagnostopoulou, et al. (eds.), 151–192.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, E. 1999. On experiencers. In Alexiadou, A., Horrocks, G., and Stavrou, M. (eds.), Studies in Greek Syntax, 67–93. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, E., van Riemsdijk, H., and Zwarts, F. (eds). 1997. Materials on Left Dislocation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrason, A., and Visser, M.. 2016. The mosaic evolution of left dislocation in Xhosa. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 50(1): 139–158.Google Scholar
Aoun, J., and Benmamoun, A.. 1998. Minimality, reconstruction, and movement. Linguistic Inquiry 29(4): 569–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aoun, J., and Choueiri, L.. 2000. Epithets. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 18(1): 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apel, V. 2017. Information Structure in Fula-Serer: A Detailed Study of Pular in Comparison with Its Relatives. PhD thesis, Humbolt-Universität, Berlin.Google Scholar
Arregi, K. 2003. Clitic left dislocation is contrastive topicalization. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 9(1): 31–44.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. 2001. Inversion as focalization. In Hulk, A. and Pollock, J.-Y. (eds), Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, 60–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belletti, A. 2004. Aspects of the low IP area. In Rizzi, L. (ed.), The Structure of IP and CP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 2, 16–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D., and Wurmbrand, S.. 2008. Case in GB/Minimalism. In Malchukov, A. and Spencer, A. (eds.), Handbook of Case, 44–58. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D., and Wurmbrand, S.. 2012. Word order and scope: Transparent interfaces and the signature. Linguistic Inquiry 43(3): 371–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J., and Mchombo, S.. 1987. Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chichewa. Language 63: 741–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bródy, M. 1995. Focus and checking theory. In Kenesei, I. (ed.), Levels and Structures: Approaches to Hungarian 5, 31–43. Szeged: JATE.Google Scholar
Buell, L. 2006. The Zulu conjoint/disjoint verb alternation: Focus or constituency. In ZAS Papers in Linguistics 43 (Zaspil 43). Papers in Bantu Grammar and Description, 8–30. Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar
Büring, D. 1997. The Meaning of Topic and Focus: The 59th Street Bridge Accent. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Li, N. C (ed.), Subject and Topic, 27–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cheng, L. L.-S., and Downing, L. J.. 2012. Against FocusP: Arguments from Zulu. In Kučerová, I. and Neeleman, A. (eds.), Information Structure: Contrasts and Positions, 247–266. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choe, H. S. 1995. Focus and topic movement in Korean and licensing. In É Kiss, K.(ed.), Discourse Configurational Languages, 269–334. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1971. Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In Steinberg, D. D. and Jakobovits, L. A. (eds.), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics, and Psychology, 183–216.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1977. On wh-movement. In Culicover, P., Wasow, T., and Akmajian, A. (eds), Formal Syntax, 71–132. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 1977. The movement nature of left dislocation. Linguistic Inquiry 8(2): 397–411.Google Scholar
Clech-Darbon, A., Rebuschi, G., and Rialland, A.. 1999. Are there cleft sentences in French? In Rebuschi, and Tuller, (eds.), 83–118.Google Scholar
Costa, J. 1998. Word Order Variation: A Constraint-Based Approach. PhD thesis, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Costa, J., and Kula, N.. 2008. Focus at the interface: Evidence from Romance and Bantu. In De Cat, C. and Demuth, K. (eds.), The Bantu–Romance Connection: A Comparative Investigation of Verbal Agreement, DPs, and Information Structure, 293–322. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruschina, S. 2012. Discourse-Related Features and Functional Projections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daneš, F. 1974. Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text. In Daneš, F. (ed.), Papers in Functional Sentence Perspective, 106–208. Prague: Academia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Cat, C. 2007a. French Dislocation: Interpretation, Syntax, Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Cat, C. 2007b. French dislocation without movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25: 485–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Kind, J. 2014. Word order in Kisikongo (H16): On the origins of a preverbal focus position and the pragmatic neutralization of SOV. In Hamlaoui, F. (ed.), Proceedings of the Workshop Bantusynphoni: Preverbal Domain(S) (Zaspil 57), 95–122. Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar
Destruel, E., Beaver, D. I., and Coppock, E.. 2019. It’s not what you expected! The surprising nature of cleft alternatives in French and English. Frontiers in Psychology 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dezső, L. 1974. Topics in syntactic typology. In Linguistica Generalia. Studies in Linguistic Typology, 191–210. Prague: Charles University.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 1990. Clitic doubling, wh-movement and quantification in Romanian. Linguistic Inquiry 21(3): 351–397.Google Scholar
Downing, B. T. 1970. Syntactic Structure and Phonological Phrasing in English. PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Downing, L. J. 2011. The prosody of “dislocation” in selected Bantu languages. Lingua 121: 772–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downing, L. J., Mtenje, A., and Pompino-Marschall, B.. 2004. Prosody and information structure in Chichewa. In ZAS Papers in Linguistics 43 (ZASPiL 37), 167–186. Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, K. 1995. Discourse Configurational Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, K. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74(2): 245–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebbinghaus, H. 1913. Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology [Über das Gedächtnis 1885]. Columbia, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endriss, C. 2009. Quantificational Topics: A Scopal Treatment of Exceptional Wide Scope Phenomena. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldhausen, I. 2010. Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure of Catalan. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Féry, C. 2006. The prosody of topicalization. In Schwabe, K. and Winkler, S. (eds.), On Information Structure, Meaning and Form, 69–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Firbas, J. 1975. On the thematic and the non-thematic section of the sentence. Style and Text 8: 319–334.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, M. 2000. The Syntax–Phonology Interface in Focus and Topic Constructions in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, M., and Hinterhölzl, R.. 2007. Types of topics in German and Italian. In Schwabe, K. and Winkler, S. (eds.), On Information Structure, Meaning, and Form, 87–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, W. 2005. Pragmatic properties of certain German and English left peripheral constructions. Linguistics 43: 89–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genzel, S., Ishihara, S., and Surányi, B.. 2015. The prosodic expression of focus, contrast and givenness: A production study of Hungarian. Lingua 165: 183–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Göksel, A., and Özsoy, A. S.. 2000. Is there a focus position in Turkish? In Göksel, A. and Kerslake, C. (eds.), Studies on Turkish and Turkic languages [Turkologica 4], 219–228. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Gryllia, S. 2009. On the Nature of Preverbal Focus in Greek: A Theoretical and Experimental Approach. PhD thesis, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K. 1978. Stress, pronominalization and the given-new distinction. University of Hawaii Working Papers in Linguistics 10(2): 1–13.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K. 1988. Universals of topic-comment structure. In Hammond, M., Moravcsik, E., and Wirth, J. (eds.), Studies in Syntactic Typology, 209–239. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L. 2012. Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena, and Composition of the Left Periphery. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamlaoui, F. 2008. Focus, contrast and the syntax–phonology interface: The case of French cleft-sentences. In Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Linguists.Google Scholar
Hamlaoui, F. 2009. Le focus à l’interface de la syntaxe et de la phonologie: le cas du français dans une perspective typologique. PhD thesis, Université Paris 3 Sorbonne Nouvelle.Google Scholar
Hamlaoui, F. 2011. On the role of phonology and discourse in Francilian French wh-questions. Journal of Linguistics 47(1): 129–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamlaoui, F., and Makasso, E.-M.. 2015. Focus marking and the unavailability of inversion structures in the Bantu language Bàsàá. Lingua 154: 35–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamlaoui, F., and Szendrői, K.. 2015. A flexible approach to the syntax-phonology mapping of intonational phrases. Phonology 32(1): 79–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamlaoui, F., and Szendrői, K.. 2017. The syntax–phonology mapping of intonational phrases in complex sentences: A flexible approach. Glossa; A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1): 55. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hankamer, J. 1972. Analogical rules in syntax. Proceedings of Chicago Linguistic Society 8: 111–123.Google Scholar
Harlig, J., and Bardovi-Harlig, K. 1988. Accentuation typology, word order and theme-rheme structure. In Hammond, M., Moravcsik, E. A., and Wirth, J. (eds.), Studies in Syntactic Typology, 125–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, K., and Zimmermann, M.. 2004. Nominal and verbal focus in the Chadic languages. In Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Amsterdam: De Gruyter 87–101.Google Scholar
Heim, I. 1982. The Semantics of Indefinite Noun Phrases. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Hirschbühler, P. 1997. On the source of lefthand NPs in French. In Anagnostopoulou, et al. (eds.), 151–192.Google Scholar
Hooper, J. B., and Thompson, S. A.. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4(4): 465–497.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. 1999. The interaction between focus and tone in Bantu. In Rebuschi, and Tuller, (eds.), 151–177.Google Scholar
Hyman, L., and Mathangwane, J.. 1998. Tonal domains and depressor consonants in Ikalanga. In Hyman, L. and Kisseberth, C. W. (eds.), Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Tone, 195–229. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Iatridou, S. 1995. Clitics and island effects. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 2(1): 11–30.Google Scholar
Issever, S. 2006. On the NSR and focus projection in Turkish. In Yagcioglu, S. and Cem Deger, A. (eds.), Advances in Turkish Linguistics: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, 421–435. Dokuz Eylül University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. 2001. The dimensions of topic-comment. Linguistics 39(04): 641–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiménez-Fernández, A. L., and Miyagawa, S.. 2014. A features-inheritance approach to root phenomena and parametric variation. Lingua 145: 276–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahnemuyipour, A. 2009. The Syntax of Sentential Stress. Oxford Scholarship Online.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimenyi, A. 1980. A Relational Grammar of Kinyarwanda. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Koch, K. 2008. Intonation and Focus in Nte?kepmxcin (Thompson River Salish). PhD thesis, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Koni Muluwa, J., and Bostoen, K.. 2014. The immediate before the verb focus position in Nsong (Bantu B85d, DRC): A corpus-based exploration. In Hamlaoui, F. (ed.), Proceedings of the Workshop Bantusynphoni: Preveral Domain(S) (Zaspil 57), 123–135. Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. 1998. Scope inversion under the rise-fall contour in German. Linguistic Inquiry 29(1): 75–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, M. 2001. For a structured meaning account of questions and answers. In Féry, C. and Sternefeld, W. (eds.), Audiatur Vox Sapientia: A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, 287–319. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In Féry, C., Fanselow, G., and Krifka, M. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Studies of Information Structure, vol. 6, 13–56. Potsdam: Universität Potsdam.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. 1972. Functional sentence perspective: A case study of Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 269–320.Google Scholar
Kush, D., Lohndal, T., and Sprouse, J.. 2019. On the island sensitivity of topicalization in Norwegian: An experimental investigation. Language 95(3): 393–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laka, I. 1990. Negation in Syntax: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 2001. A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 39: 463–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, P. 2007. Topicalization in Malagasy, Tagalog and Tsou. In Schwabe, K. and Winkler, S. (eds.), On Information Structure, Meaning and Form: Generalizations across Languages, 129–154. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López, L. 2016. Dislocations and information structure. In Féry, C. and Ishihara, S. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, 402–421. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marty, A. 1884. Über subjectslose Sätze und das Verhältnis der Grammatik zu Logik und Psychologie. Technical report, Vierteljahresschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie.Google Scholar
Mathesius, V. 1975. A Functional Analysis of Present Day English on a General Linguistics Basis. The Hague: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyagawa, S. 2012. Agreements that occur mainly in main clauses. In Aalbrecht, L., Haegeman, L., and Nye, R. (eds.), Main Clause Phenomena: New Horizons, 79–112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morimoto, Y. 2000. Discourse Configurationality in Bantu Morphosyntax. PhD thesis, Stanford University, CA.Google Scholar
Morimoto, Y. 2006. Agreement properties and word order in comparative Bantu. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 43: 161–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, A., and van de Koot, H.. 2012. Towards a unified encoding of contrast and scope. In Neeleman, A. and Vermeulen, R. (eds.), The Syntax of Topic, Focus, and Contrast: An Interface-Based Approach, 39–76. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, A., and van de Koot, H.. 2016. Word order and information structure. In Féry, C. and Ishihara, S. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure, 383–401. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A., and Vermeulen, R.. 2012. The syntactic expression of information structure. In Neeleman, A. and Vermeulen, R. (eds.), The Syntax of Topic, Focus, and Contrast: An Interface-Based Approach, 1–38. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, A., Titov, E., van de Koot, H., and Vermeulen, R.. 2009. A syntactic typology of topic, focus and contrast. In van Craenenbroeck, J. (ed.), Alternatives to Cartography, 15–52. Amsterdam: Mouton De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, I. 2001. Secondary topic as a relation in information structure. Linguistics 39(1): 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ott, D. 2014. An ellipsis approach to contrastive left-dislocation. Linguistic Inquiry 45(2): 269–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ott, D. 2015. Connectivity in left-dislocation and the composition of the left-periphery. Linguistic Variation 15(2): 225–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ott, D. 2017. The syntax and pragmatics of dislocation: A non-templatic approach. In Proceedings of the 2017 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, 1–13.Google Scholar
Ott, D., and de Vries, M.. 2016. Right-dislocation as deletion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34(2): 641–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouhalla, J. 1994. Introducing Transformational Grammar: from Rules to Principles and Parameters. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Paul, I. 2003. Multiple topics: Evidence from Malagasy. In Riehl, A. and Savella, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the AFLA9 (Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 19), 137–148, Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistic Club Publications.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M., and Hyman, L.. 2009. Focus in Aghem. In Zimmermann, M. and Féry, C. (eds.), Information Structure: Theoretical, Typological, and Experimental Perspectives, 206–233. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Prince, E. 1985. Fancy syntax and shared knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics 9: 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rebuschi, G., and Tuller, L.. 1999. The Grammar of Focus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T. 1982. Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics. Technical report, IULC, Bloomington, IN.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T. 1995. Interface strategies. In OTS Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics, 55–109. Utrecht: OTS, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. 2006. Interface Strategies: Optimal and Costly Computations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, C. 1996. Information structure in discourse. In Yoon, J. and Kathol, A. (eds.), OSU Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 49, 91–136. Ohio: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Rooth, M. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossi, M. 1999. L’intonation: le système du français: description et modélisation. Paris: Orphys.Google Scholar
Rubio Alcalá, C. 2014. Syntactic Constraints on Topicalization Phenomena. PhD thesis, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Saebo, K. J. 1998. Topic, focus and quantifier raising. In Dekker, P., Stokhof, M., and Venema, Y. (eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Amsterdam Colloquium, 67–72. Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language and Computation.Google Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, V. 2005. Prosody–syntax interaction in the expression of focus. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23: 687–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, V. 2006. When right dislocation meets the left-periphery: A unified analysis of Italian non-final focus. Lingua 116(6): 836–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, V. 2015. The Interaction of Focus, Givenness, and Prosody: A Study of Italian Clause Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, E. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology 3: 371–405. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675700000695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sgall, P., Hajičová, E., and Benešová, E.. 1973. Topic, Focus and Generative Semantics. Taunus: Kronberg.Google Scholar
Skopeteas, S., and Fanselow, G.. 2010. Focus in Georgian and the expression of contrast. Lingua 120(6): 1370–1391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, P. F. 1964. Identifying reference and truth values. Theoria 30: 96–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surányi, B., Ishihara, S., and Schubö, F.. 2012. Syntax-prosody mapping, topic-comment structure and stress-focus correspondence in Hungarian. In Elordieta, G. and Prieto, P. (eds.), Prosody and Meaning, 35–72. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, A., and den Dikken, M.. 2003. Islands. In Cheng, L. L.-S. and Sybesma, R. (eds.), The Second Glot International State-of-the-Article Book: The Latest in Linguistics, 213–240. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szendrői, K. 2001. Focus and the Syntax–Phonology Interface. PhD thesis, University College of London.Google Scholar
Szendrői, K. 2002. Stress-focus correspondence in Italian. In Beyssade, C., Bok-Bennema, R., Drijkoningen, F., and Monachesi, P. (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory. Selected Papers from “Going Romance” 2000, 287–303. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szendrői, K. 2003. A stress-based approach to the syntax of Hungarian focus. The Linguistic Review 20: 37–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szendrői, K. 2017. The syntax of information structure and the PF interface. Glossa: A Journal of Linguistics 2(1): 32. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.140.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, K. T. 1982. Extraction from relative clauses in Norwegian. In Engdahl, E. and Ejerhed, E. (eds.), Readings on Unbounded Dependencies in Scandinavian Languages, 205–221. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Titov, E. 2020a. Morphosyntactic encoding of information structure in Akan. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1): 27. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.576.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I.-M. 1995. Focusing in modern Greek. In Kiss, K. É. (ed.), Discourse Configurational Languages, 176–206. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuller, L. 1992. The syntax of postverbal focus constructions in Chadic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 10(2): 303–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, J. 1995. Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26(1): 79–123.Google Scholar
van der Wal, J. 2006. The disjoint verb form and an empty immediate after verb position in Makhuwa. In Downing, L., Marten, L., and Zerbian, S. (eds.), ZAS Papers in Linguistics 43: Papers in Bantu Grammar and Description 233–256. Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar
van der Wal, J. 2009. Word Order and Information Structure in Makhuwa-Enahara. PhD thesis, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Vermeulen, R. 2012. Word order variation and information structure in Japanese and Korean. In Neeleman, A. and Vermeulen, R. (eds.), The Syntax of Topic, Focus, and Contrast: An Interface-Based Approach, 77–118. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watters, J. 1979. Focus in Aghem: A study of its formal correlates and typology. In Hyman, L. (ed.), Aghem Grammatical Structure, 137–197. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Yoneda, N. 2011. Word order in Matengo (N13): Topicality and informational roles. Lingua 121: 754–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeller, J. 2009. On clitic left dislocation in Zulu. In Ermisch, S. (ed.), Frankfurt African Studies Bulletin 18 (2006): Focus and Topic in African Languages 131–156. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Zerbian, S. 2007. Subject/object-asymmetry in Northern Sotho. In Schwabe, K. and Winkler, S. (eds.), Information Structure and the Architecture of Grammar: A Typological Perspective, 323–346. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
References
Acuña-Fariña, J. C., Meseguer, E., and Carreiras, M.. 2014. Gender and number agreement in comprehension in Spanish. Lingua 143: 108–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alderete, J. 2022. Cross-linguistic trends in speech errors: An analysis of sub-lexical errors in Cantonese. Language and Speech 66(1): 79–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alexopoulou, T., and Keller, F.. 2007. Locality, cyclicity, and resumption: At the interface between the grammar and the human sentence processor. Language 83(1): 110–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altmann, G. T., and Kamide, Y.. 1999. Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 73(3): 247–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anand, P., Chung, S., and Wagers, M.. 2011. Widening the net: Challenges for gathering linguistic data in the digital age. In NSF SBE 2020: Rebuilding the Mosaic: Future Research in the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences at the National Science Foundation in the Next Decade. https://people.ucsc.edu/%7Eschung/anandchungwagers.pdf.Google Scholar
Aoshima, S., Phillips, C., and Weinberg, A.. 2004. Processing filler-gap dependencies in a head-final language. Journal of Memory and Language 51(1): 23–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aoshima, S., Yoshida, M., and Phillips, C.. 2009. Incremental processing of coreference and binding in Japanese. Syntax 12(2): 93–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apurva, and Husain, S.. 2021. Revisiting anti-locality effects: Evidence against prediction-based accounts. Journal of Memory and Language 121: 104280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arai, M., and Keller, F.. 2013. The use of verb-specific information for prediction in sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 28(4): 525–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnett, N., and Wagers, M.. 2017. Subject encodings and retrieval interference. Journal of Memory and Language 93: 22–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnon, I. 2010. Rethinking child difficulty: The effect of NP type on children’s processing of relative clauses in Hebrew. Journal of Child Language 37(1): 27–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arosio, F., Guasti, M. T., and Stucchi, N.. 2011. Disambiguating information and memory resources in children’s processing of Italian relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 40(2): 137–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Avetisyan, S., Lago, S., and Vasishth, S.. 2020. Does case marking affect agreement attraction in comprehension? Journal of Memory and Language 112: 104087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badecker, W., and Kuminiak, F.. 2007. Morphology, agreement and working memory retrieval in sentence production: Evidence from gender and case in Slovak. Journal of Memory and Language 56(1): 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bader, M., and Meng, M.. 1999. Subject-object ambiguities in German embedded clauses: An across-the-board comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 28(2): 121–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, E., and MacWhinney, B.. 1982. Functionalist approaches to grammar. In Gleitman, L. and Wanner, E. (eds.), Language Acquisition: The State of the Art, 173–218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bays, P., Schneegans, S., Ma, W. J., and Brady, T.. 2022. Representation and computation in working memory. PsyArXiv preprint. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/kubr9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béjar, S. 2003. Phi-Syntax: A Theory of Agreement. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics. https://twpl.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/twpl/article/view/6503.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. C., and Weinberg, A.. 1984. The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Betancort, M., Carreiras, M., and Sturt, P.. 2009. The processing of subject and object relative clauses in Spanish: An eye-tracking study. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 62(10): 1915–1929.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bhatia, S. 2019. Computing Agreement in a Mixed System. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Bhatia, S., and Dillon, B.. 2022. Processing agreement in Hindi: When agreement feeds attraction. Journal of Memory and Language 125: 104322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatia, S., and Husain, S.. 2022. Preverbal syntactic complexity leads to local coherence effects. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 38(3), 359–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, R. 2005. Long distance agreement in Hindi-Urdu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23(4): 757–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blasi, D. E., Henrich, J., Adamou, E., Kemmerer, D., and Majid, A.. 2022. Over-reliance on English hinders cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(12): 1153–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleotu, A. C., and Dillon, B.. 2024. Romanian (subject-like) DPs attract more than bare nouns: Evidence from speeded continuations. Journal of Memory and Language 134: 104445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, K., and Miller, C.. A. 1991. Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology 23(1): 45–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bornkessel‐Schlesewsky, I., and Schlesewsky, M.. 2009. The role of prominence information in the real‐time comprehension of transitive constructions: A cross‐linguistic approach. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(1): 19–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdages, J. S. 1992. Parsing complex NPs in French. In Goodluck, H. and Rochemont, M. (eds.), Island Constraints: Theory, Acquisition, and Processing, 61–87. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caplan, D., and Waters, G.. 2013. Memory mechanisms supporting syntactic comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 20(2): 243–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carreiras, M., Duñabeitia, J. A., Vergara, M., De La Cruz-Pavía, I., and Laka, I.. 2010. Subject relative clauses are not universally easier to process: Evidence from Basque. Cognition 115(1): 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, W., Duan, Y., Qian, J., Wu, F., Jiang, X., and Zhou, X.. 2020. Gender interference in processing Chinese compound reflexive: Evidence from reading eye-tracking. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 35(10): 1355–1370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaves, R. P., and Dery, J. E.. 2019. Frequency effects in subject islands. Journal of Linguistics 55(3): 475–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chow, W. Y., Smith, C., Lau, E., and Phillips, C.. 2016. A “bag-of-arguments” mechanism for initial verb predictions. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 31(5): 577–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chromý, J., Brand, J. L., Laurinavichyute, A., and Lacina, R.. 2023. Number agreement attraction in Czech and English comprehension: A direct experimental comparison. Glossa Psycholinguistics 2(1). https://doi.org/10.5070/G6011235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clemens, L. E., Coon, J., Mateo Pedro, P., Morgan, A. M., Polinsky, M., Tandet, G., and Wagers, M.. 2015. Ergativity and the complexity of extraction: A view from Mayan. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 33(2): 417–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, L., and Mehler, J.. 1996. Click monitoring revisited: An on-line study of sentence comprehension. Memory & Cognition 24(1): 94–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cowan, N. 2010. The magical mystery four: How is working memory capacity limited, and why? Current Directions in Psychological Science 19(1): 51–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunnings, I., and Sturt, P.. 2018. Retrieval interference and semantic interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language 102: 16–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vincenzi, M. 1991. Syntactic Parsing Strategies in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deal, A. R. 2015. Interaction and satisfaction in φ-agreement. In Bui, T. and Özyildiz, D. (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 45, vol. 1, 179–192. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
DeLong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., and Kutas, M.. 2005. Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience 8(8): 1117–1121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Demiral, Ş. B., Schlesewsky, M., and Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I.. 2008. On the universality of language comprehension strategies: Evidence from Turkish. Cognition 106(1): 484–500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deutsch, A., and Dank, M.. 2009. Conflicting cues and competition between notional and grammatical factors in producing number and gender agreement: Evidence from Hebrew. Journal of Memory and Language 60(1): 112–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutsch, A., and Dank, M.. 2011. Symmetric and asymmetric patterns of attraction errors in producing subject–predicate agreement in Hebrew: An issue of morphological structure. Language and Cognitive Processes 26(1): 24–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillon, B. 2011. Structured Access in Sentence Comprehension. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Dillon, B. 2014. Syntactic memory in the comprehension of reflexive dependencies: an overview. Language and Linguistics Compass 8(5): 171–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillon, B., Mishler, A., Sloggett, S., and Phillips, C.. 2013. Contrasting intrusion profiles for agreement and anaphora: Experimental and modeling evidence. Journal of Memory and Language 69(2): 85–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillon, B., Chow, W. Y., Wagers, M., Guo, T., Liu, F., and Phillips, C.. 2014. The structure-sensitivity of memory access: Evidence from Mandarin Chinese. Frontiers in Psychology 5: 1025.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dillon, B., Chow, W. Y., and Xiang, M.. 2016. The relationship between anaphor features and antecedent retrieval: Comparing Mandarin ziji and ta-ziji. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 1966.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 2013. Bare nouns. In Dobrovie-Sorin, C. and Giurgea, I. (eds.), A Reference Grammar of Romanian, vol. 1: The Noun Phrase, 49–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberhard, K. M., Cutting, J. C., and Bock, K.. 2005. Making syntax of sense: Number agreement in sentence production. Psychological Review 112(3): 531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engelmann, F., Jӓger, L. A., and Vasishth, S.. 2019. The effect of prominence and cue association on retrieval processes: A computational account. Cognitive Science 43(12): e12800.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fedele, E., and Kaiser, E.. 2014. Looking back and looking forward: Anaphora and cataphora in Italian. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 20(1): 10.Google Scholar
Federmeier, K. D., and Kutas, M.. 1999. A rose by any other name: Long-term memory structure and sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language 41(4): 469–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F. 2003. The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology 47(2): 164–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foote, R., and Bock, K.. 2012. The role of morphology in subject–verb number agreement: A comparison of Mexican and Dominican Spanish. Language and Cognitive Processes 27(3): 429–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, K. I., Guerrera, C., and Elliot, L.. 2009. The maze task: Measuring forced incremental sentence processing time. Behavior Research Methods 41(1): 163–171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franck, J., and Wagers, M.. 2020. Hierarchical structure and memory mechanisms in agreement attraction. PLOS One 15(5): e0232163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franck, J., Vigliocco, G., and Nicol, J.. 2002. Subject–verb agreement errors in French and English: The role of syntactic hierarchy. Language and Cognitive Processes 17(4): 371–404.CrossRefGoogle 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., Vigliocco, G., Antón-Méndez, I., Collina, S., and Frauenfelder, U. H.. 2008. The interplay of syntax and form in sentence production: A cross-linguistic study of form effects on agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes 23(3): 329–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franck, J., Soare, G., Frauenfelder, U. and Rizzi, L.. 2010. Object interference: The role of intermediate traces of movement. Journal of Memory and Language 62(2): 166–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Frank, S. L., Trompenaars, T., and Vasishth, S.. 2016. Cross‐linguistic differences in processing double‐embedded relative clauses: Working‐memory constraints or language statistics? Cognitive Science 40(3): 554–578.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frazier, L. 1979. On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. 1987. Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5(4): 519–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, L., and Flores d’Arcais, G. B.. 1989. Filler driven parsing: A study of gap filling in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language 28(3): 331–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, L., and Rayner, K.. 1982. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology 14(2): 178–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Futrell, R., Levy, R. P., and Gibson, E.. 2020. Dependency locality as an explanatory principle for word order. Language 96(2): 371–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, R., Rodriguez, G. G., and Kidd, E.. 2021. Developmental effects in the online use of morphosyntactic cues in sentence processing: Evidence from Tagalog. Cognition 216: 104859.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garnsey, S. M., Pearlmutter, N. J., Myers, E., and Lotocky, M. A.. 1997. The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 37(1): 58–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gennari, S. P., and MacDonald, M. C.. 2008. Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language 58(2): 161–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, E. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68(1): 1–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, E., and Thomas, J.. 1999. Memory limitations and structural forgetting: The perception of complex ungrammatical sentences as grammatical. Language and Cognitive Processes 14(3): 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, E., Bergen, L., and Piantadosi, S. T.. 2013. Rational integration of noisy evidence and prior semantic expectations in sentence interpretation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(20): 8051–8056.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giskes, A., and Kush, D.. 2021. Processing cataphors: Active antecedent search is persistent. Memory & Cognition 49(7): 1370–1386.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., and Johnson, M.. 2001. Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27(6): 1411.Google ScholarPubMed
Grillo, N., and Costa, J.. 2014. A novel argument for the universality of parsing principles. Cognition 133(1): 156–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grodner, D., and Gibson, E.. 2005. Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input for sentential complexity. Cognitive Science 29(2): 261–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grüter, T., Lau, E., and Ling, W.. 2020. How classifiers facilitate predictive processing in L1 and L2 Chinese: The role of semantic and grammatical cues. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 35(2): 221–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, J. 2001. A probabilistic Earley Parser as a psycholinguistic model. In Proceedings of NAACL, vol. 2, 159–166.Google Scholar
Hale, J. 2006. Uncertainty about the rest of the sentence. Cognitive Science 30(4): 643–672.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Hammerly, C., Staub, A., and Dillon, B.. 2022. Person-based prominence guides incremental interpretation: Evidence from obviation in Ojibwe. Cognition 225: 105122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartsuiker, R. J., Antón-Méndez, I., and Van Zee, M.. 2001. Object attraction in subject–verb agreement construction. Journal of Memory and Language 45(4): 546–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., Schriefers, H. J., Bock, K., and Kikstra, G. M.. 2003. Morphophonological influences on the construction of subject-verb agreement. Memory & Cognition 31(8): 1316–1326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
He, X., but IV Kaiser, E.. 2016. Processing the Chinese reflexive “ziji”: Effects of featural constraints on anaphor resolution. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hopp, H., and Lemmerth, N.. 2018. Lexical and syntactic congruency in L2 predictive gender processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 40(1): 171–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, M. W., and Kahana, M. J.. 2002. A distributed representation of temporal context. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 46(3): 269–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J., and Liu, C. S. L.. 2001. Logophoricity, attitudes, and ziji at the interface. In Cole, P., Hermon, G., and Huang, C.-T. J. (eds.), Long-Distance Reflexives, 141–195. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Huang, N., and Phillips, C.. 2021. When missing NPs make double center-embedding sentences acceptable. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 6(1): 37. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1292.Google Scholar
Husain, S., Vasishth, S., and Srinivasan, N.. 2014. Strong expectations cancel locality effects: Evidence from Hindi. PloS One 9(7): e100986.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Inoue, A., and Fodor, J. D.. 1995. Information-paced parsing of Japanese. In Mazuka, R. and Nagai, N. (eds.), Japanese Sentence Processing, 63–118. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Ito, A., Gambi, C., Pickering, M. J., Fuellenbach, K., and Husband, E. M.. 2020. Prediction of phonological and gender information: An event-related potential study in Italian. Neuropsychologia 136: 107291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ivan, R., Dillon, B., and Johnson, K.. 2021. (Bound) pronouns in competition: Evidence from comprehension. In Proceedings of WCCFL 39. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project 567–575.Google Scholar
Jäger, L. A., Engelmann, F., and Vasishth, S.. 2015a. Retrieval interference in reflexive processing: Experimental evidence from Mandarin, and computational modeling. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 617.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jäger, L. A., Chen, Z., Li, Q., Lin, C. J. C., and Vasishth, S.. 2015b. The subject-relative advantage in Chinese: Evidence for expectation-based processing. Journal of Memory and Language 79: 97–120.CrossRefGoogle 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: 316–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jäger, L. A., Mertzen, D., Van Dyke, J. A., and Vasishth, S.. 2020. Interference patterns in subject–verb agreement and reflexives revisited: A large-sample study. Journal of Memory and Language 111: 104063.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaiser, E., and Trueswell, J. C.. 2004. The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order language. Cognition 94(2): 113–147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kamide, Y., and Mitchell, D. C.. 1999. Incremental pre-head attachment in Japanese parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes 14(5–6): 631–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. T., and Haywood, S. L.. 2003. The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 49(1): 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kandel, M., and Phillips, C.. 2022. Number attraction in verb and anaphor production. Journal of Memory and Language 127: 104370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kandel, M., Wyatt, C. R., and Phillips, C.. 2022. Agreement attraction error and timing profiles in continuous speech. Glossa Psycholinguistics 1(1). https://doi.org/10.5070/G601157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karimi, H., and Ferreira, F.. 2016. Good-enough linguistic representations and online cognitive equilibrium in language processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 69(5): 1013–1040.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kazanina, N., and Phillips, C.. 2010. Differential effects of constraints in the processing of Russian cataphora. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 63(2): 371–400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kazanina, N., Lau, E. F., Lieberman, M., Yoshida, M., and Phillips, C.. 2007. The effect of syntactic constraints on the processing of backwards anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language 56(3): 384–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keshev, M. 2017. Active Dependency Formation in Syntactic Islands: Evidence from Hebrew Sentence Processing. Unpublished MA thesis, Tel Aviv University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keshev, M., and Meltzer-Asscher, A.. 2017. Active dependency formation in islands: How grammatical resumption affects sentence processing. Language 93(3): 549–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keshev, M., and Meltzer-Asscher, A.. 2020. The effects of syntactic pressures and pragmatic considerations on predictive dependency formation. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 35(2): 256–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keshev, M., and Meltzer-Asscher, A.. 2021. Noisy is better than rare: Comprehenders compromise subject–verb agreement to form more probable linguistic structures. Cognitive Psychology 124: 101359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keshev, M., and Meltzer-Asscher, A.. 2024. The representation of agreement features in memory is incrementally updated during sentence processing: Evidence from verb-reflexive interactions. Journal of Memory and Language 135: 104495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2023.104495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidd, E., and Garcia, R.. 2022. How diverse is child language acquisition research? First Language 42(6), 703–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, J., and Just, M. A.. 1991. Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language 30(5): 580–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knoeferle, P., and Kreysa, H.. 2012. Can speaker gaze modulate syntactic structuring and thematic role assignment during spoken sentence comprehension? Frontiers in Psychology 3: 538.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knoeferle, P., Crocker, M. W., Scheepers, C., and Pickering, M. J.. 2005. The influence of the immediate visual context on incremental thematic role-assignment: Evidence from eye-movements in depicted events. Cognition 95(1): 95–127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Konrad, I., Burattin, M., Cecchetto, C., Foppolo, F., Staub, A., and Donati, C.. 2021. Avoiding gaps in Romance: Evidence from Italian and French for a structural parsing principle. Syntax 24(2): 191–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konieczny, L. 2000. Locality and parsing complexity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29(6): 627–645.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kush, D. W. 2013. Respecting Relations: Memory Access and Antecedent Retrieval in Incremental Sentence Processing. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Kush, D., and Dillon, B.. 2021. Principle B constrains the processing of cataphora: Evidence for syntactic and discourse predictions. Journal of Memory and Language 120: 104254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kush, D., and Phillips, C.. 2014. Local anaphor licensing in an SOV language: Implications for retrieval strategies. Frontiers in Psychology 5: 1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kush, D., Lidz, J., and Phillips, C.. 2015. Relation-sensitive retrieval: Evidence from bound variable pronouns. Journal of Memory and Language 82: 18–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kush, D., Johns, C. L., and Van Dyke, J. A.. 2019. Prominence-sensitive pronoun resolution: New evidence from the speed–accuracy tradeoff procedure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 45(7): 1234.Google ScholarPubMed
Kwon, N., and Sturt, P.. 2013. Null pronominal (pro) resolution in Korean, a discourse-oriented language. Language and Cognitive Processes 28(3): 377–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwon, N., and Sturt, P.. 2016. Attraction effects in honorific agreement in Korean. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 1302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kwon, N., Lee, Y., Gordon, P. C., Kluender, R., and Polinsky, M.. 2010. Cognitive and linguistic factors affecting subject/object asymmetry: An eye-tracking study of prenominal relative clauses in Korean. Language 86(3): 546–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacina, R., and Chromý, J.. 2022. No agreement attraction facilitation observed in Czech: Not even syncretism helps. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 44: 44.Google Scholar
Lago, S., Shalom, D. E., Sigman, M., Lau, E. F., and Phillips, C.. 2015. Agreement attraction in Spanish comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 82: 133–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lago, S., Gračanin-Yuksek, M., Şafak, D. F., Demir, O., Kırkıcı, B., and Felser, C.. 2019. Straight from the horse’s mouth: Agreement attraction effects with Turkish possessors. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 9(3): 398–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lago, S., Acuña Fariña, C., and Meseguer, E.. 2022. The reading signatures of agreement attraction. Open Mind 5: 132–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, E., and Tanaka, N.. 2021. The subject advantage in relative clauses: A review. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 6(1): 34. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1343.Google Scholar
Lau, E., Socolof, M., Clarke, N., Asatiani, R., and Polinsky, M.. 2023. A subject relative clause preference in a split-ergative language: ERP evidence from Georgian. Brain and Language 236: 105199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurinavichyute, A., and von der Malsburg, T.. 2022. Semantic attraction in sentence comprehension. Cognitive Science 46(2): e13086.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laurinavichyute, A., Jäger, L. A., Akinina, Y., Roß, J., and Dragoy, O.. 2017. Retrieval and encoding interference: Cross-linguistic evidence from anaphor processing. Frontiers in Psychology 8: 965.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levy, R. 2008a. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106(3):1126–1177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levy, R. 2008b. A noisy-channel model of rational human sentence comprehension under uncertain input. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 234–243. Honolulu, HI: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Levy, R., Fedorenko, E., and Gibson, E.. 2013. The syntactic complexity of Russian relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language 69(4): 461–495.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, R. L., and Vasishth, S.. 2005. An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science 29(3): 375–419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S., and Van Dyke, J. A.. 2006. Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(10): 447–454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Linzen, T., and Jaeger, T. F.. 2016. Uncertainty and expectation in sentence processing: Evidence from subcategorization distributions. Cognitive Science 40(6): 1382–1411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lorimor, H. 2007. Conjunctions and Grammatical Agreement. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Lorimor, H., Bock, K., Zalkind, E., Sheyman, A., and Beard, R.. 2008. Agreement and attraction in Russian. Language and Cognitive Processes 23(6): 769–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyu, J., and Kaiser, E.. 2021. Unpacking the blocking effect: Syntactic prominence and perspective-taking in antecedent retrieval in Mandarin Chinese. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 6(1): 136. https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5781.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C. 2013. How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology 4: 226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., and Schriefers, H.. 2002. The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language 47(1): 50–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Momma, S., Slevc, L. R., and Phillips, C.. 2016. The timing of verb selection in Japanese sentence production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 42(5): 813.Google ScholarPubMed
Martin, A. E. 2016. Language processing as cue integration: Grounding the psychology of language in perception and neurophysiology. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, A. E. 2020. A compositional neural architecture for language. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 32(8): 1407–1427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, A. E., and McElree, B.. 2018. Retrieval cues and syntactic ambiguity resolution: Speed–accuracy tradeoff evidence. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 33(6): 769–783.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McElree, B. 2006. Accessing recent events. Psychology of Learning and Motivation 46: 155–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McElree, B., and Dosher, B. A.. 1989. Serial position and set size in short-term memory: The time course of recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 118(4): 346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McElree, B., Foraker, S., and Dyer, L.. 2003. Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 48(1): 67–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertzen, D., Paape, D., Dillon, B., Engbert, R., and Vasishth, S.. 2021. Syntactic and semantic interference in sentence comprehension: Support from English and German eye-tracking data. PsyArXiv: Preprint https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ua9yv.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, D. C., Cuetos, F., Corley, M., and Brysbaert, M.. 1995. Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (nonlexical) statistical records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24(6): 469–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakatani, K., and Gibson, E.. 2010. An on‐line study of Japanese nesting complexity. Cognitive Science 34(1): 94–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nevins, A. 2011. Multiple agree with clitics: Person complementarity vs. omnivorous number. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29(4): 939–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ness, T., and Meltzer-Asscher, A.. 2018. Lexical inhibition due to failed prediction: Behavioral evidence and ERP correlates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 44(8): 1269–1285.Google ScholarPubMed
Nicol, J., and Swinney, D.. 1989. The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18(1): 5–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicol, J. and Wilson, R.. 2000. Agreement and case-marking in Russian: A psycholinguistic investigation of agreement errors in production. In Holloway King, T. and Sekerina, I. (eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Philadelphia Meeting 1999, 314–327. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Nieuwland, M. S., and Van Berkum, J. J.. 2006. When peanuts fall in love: N400 evidence for the power of discourse. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18(7): 1098–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norcliffe, E., Harris, A. C., and Jaeger, T. F.. 2015. Cross-linguistic psycholinguistics and its critical role in theory development: Early beginnings and recent advances. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30(9): 1009–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberauer, K. 2009. Design for a working memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation 51: 45–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberauer, K. 2019. Working memory and attention: A conceptual analysis and review. Journal of Cognition 2(1): 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omaki, A., and Lidz, J.. 2015. Linking parser development to acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Language Acquisition 22(2): 158–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Özge, D., Küntay, A., and Snedeker, J.. 2019. Why wait for the verb? Turkish speaking children use case markers for incremental language comprehension. Cognition 183: 152–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pablos, L., Doetjes, J., Ruijgrok, B., and Cheng, L. L.-S.. 2015. Active search for antecedents in cataphoric pronoun resolution. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 1638.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, D. 2019. Two minds are not always better than one: Modeling evidence for a single sentence analyzer. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1): 64. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.766.Google Scholar
Parker, D., and Phillips, C.. 2017. Reflexive attraction in comprehension is selective. Journal of Memory and Language 94: 272–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, D., Shvartsman, M., and Van Dyke, J. A.. 2017. The cue-based retrieval theory of sentence comprehension: New findings and new challenges. In Escobar, L., Torrens, V., and Parodi, T. (eds.), Language Processing and Disorders, 121–144. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Patterson, C., and Felser, C.. 2019. Delayed application of binding Condition C during cataphoric pronoun resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 48(2): 453–475.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearlmutter, N. J., Garnsey, S. M., and Bock, K.. 1999. Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 41(3): 427–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, C. 2006. The real-time status of island phenomena. Language 82(4): 795–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, C. 2013. On the nature of island constraints. I: Language processing and reductionist accounts. In Sprouse, J. and Hornstein, N. (eds.), Experimental Syntax and Island Effects, 64–108. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M. J., and Traxler, M. J.. 1998. Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 24(4): 940.Google Scholar
Pizarro-Guevara, J. 2020. When Human Universal Meets Language Specifics. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Pizarro-Guevara, J. S., and Dillon, B.. 2022. What Tagalog can teach us: The influence of word order in reflexive processing. In Proceedings of the 28th Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association, 138–156.Google Scholar
Pizarro-Guevara, J. S., and Wagers, M.. 2020. The predictive value of Tagalog voice morphology in filler-gap dependency formation. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poliak, M., Ryskin, R., Braginsky, M., and Gibson, E.. 2024. It is not what you say but how you say it: Evidence from Russian shows robust effects of the structural prior on noisy channel inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 50(4), 637–649.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M., Gallo, C. G., Graff, P., and Kravtchenko, E.. 2012. Subject preference and ergativity. Lingua 122(3): 267–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchett, B. L. 1988. Garden path phenomena and the grammatical basis of language processing. Language 64: 539–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchett, B. L. 1991. Head position and parsing ambiguity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 20: 251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranjan, S., Rajkumar, R., and Agarwal, S.. 2022. Locality and expectation effects in Hindi preverbal constituent ordering. Cognition 223: 104959.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richards, N. 2013. Tagalog anaphora. In Cheng, L. and Corver, N. (eds.), Diagnosing Syntax, 412–433. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rommers, J., Meyer, A. S., and Huettig, F.. 2015. Verbal and nonverbal predictors of language-mediated anticipatory eye movements. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 77(3): 720–730.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Safavi, M. S., Husain, S., and Vasishth, S.. 2016. Dependency resolution difficulty increases with distance in Persian separable complex predicates: Evidence for expectation and memory-based accounts. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Santesteban, M., Pickering, M. J., and Branigan, H. P.. 2013. The effects of word order on subject–verb and object–verb agreement: Evidence from Basque. Journal of Memory and Language 68(2): 160–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarvasy, H. S., Morgan, A. M., Yu, J., Ferreira, V. S., and Momma, S.. 2023. Cross-clause planning in Nungon (Papua New Guinea): Eye-tracking evidence. Memory & Cognition 51(3): 666–680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sasaki, K., Foley, S., Pizarro-Guevara, J., Silva-Robles, F., Toosarvandani, M., and Wagers, M.. 2022. Evidence for a universal parsing principle in Santiago Laxopa Zapotec. Ms., University of California, Santa Cruz. https://osf.io/2wgd8/.Google Scholar
Sauppe, S. 2016. Verbal semantics drives early anticipatory eye movements during the comprehension of verb-initial sentences. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schlesewsky, M., Fanselow, G., Kliegl, R., and Krems, J.. 2000. The subject preference in the processing of locally ambiguous wh-questions in German. In Hemforth, B. and Konieczny, L. (eds.), German Sentence Processing, 65–93. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlueter, Z., Williams, A., and Lau, E.. 2018. Exploring the abstractness of number retrieval cues in the computation of subject–verb agreement in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 99: 74–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schriefers, H., Friederici, A. D., and Kuhn, K.. 1995. The processing of locally ambiguous relative clauses in German. Journal of Memory and Language 34(4): 499–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sezer, H. 2020. Puzzling Reflexive Kendi in Turkish and Its Implications for the Parser. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Dixon, R. M. W. (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, 112–171. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Sims, A. 2012. Syncretism and Structural Attraction Errors in Croatian. Paper presented at American International Morphology Meeting. Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
Sims, A. 2015. Morphosyntactic agreement in Croatian (Wikipedia): Thoughts on the space between “errors” and “conventionalized grammar.” Balkanistica 28: 519–546.Google Scholar
Slioussar, N. 2018. Forms and features: The role of syncretism in number agreement attraction. Journal of Memory and Language 101: 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slioussar, N., Magomedova, V., and Makarova, P.. 2022. The role of case syncretism in agreement attraction: A comprehension study. Frontiers in Psychology 13 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.829112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sloggett, S. 2017. When Errors Aren’t: How Comprehenders Selectively Violate Binding Theory. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Smith, G., and Vasishth, S.. 2020. A principled approach to feature selection in models of sentence processing. Cognitive Science 44(12): e12918.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Staub, A. 2009. On the interpretation of the number attraction effect: Response time evidence. Journal of Memory and Language 60(2): 308–327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Staub, A. 2010. Eye movements and processing difficulty in object relative clauses. Cognition 116(1): 71–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Staub, A., Foppolo, F., Donati, C., and Cecchetto, C.. 2018. Relative clause avoidance: Evidence for a structural parsing principle. Journal of Memory and Language 98: 26–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, K., Veríssimo, J., Schad, D. J., Oltrogge, E., Vasishth, S., and Lago, S.. 2021. The interaction of grammatically distinct agreement dependencies in predictive processing. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 36(9): 1159–1179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stowe, L. A. 1986. Parsing wh-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes 1(3): 227–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturt, P. 2003. The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 48(3): 542–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturt, P. 2013. Syntactic constraints on referential processing. In Van Gompel, R. P. (ed.), Sentence Processing, 136–159. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Sussman, R. S., and Sedivy, J.. 2003. The time-course of processing syntactic dependencies: Evidence from eye movements. Language and Cognitive Processes 18(2): 143–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabor, W., Galantucci, B., and Richardson, D.. 2004. Effects of merely local syntactic coherence on sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language 50(4): 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., and Sedivy, J. C.. 1995. Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science 268(5217): 1632–1634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tanner, D., Nicol, J., and Brehm, L.. 2014. The time-course of feature interference in agreement comprehension: Multiple mechanisms and asymmetrical attraction. Journal of Memory and Language 76: 195–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thornton, R., and MacDonald, C. M.. 2003. Plausibility and grammatical agreement. Journal of Memory and Language 48(4) 740–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollan, R., Massam, D., and Heller, D.. 2019. Effects of case and transitivity on processing dependencies: Evidence from Niuean. Cognitive Science 43(6): e12736.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Traxler, M. J., and Pickering, M. J.. 1996. Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language 35(3): 454–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traxler, M. J., Morris, R. K., and Seely, R. E.. 2002. Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 47(1): 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traxler, M. J., Williams, R. S., Blozis, S. A., and Morris, R. K.. 2005. Working memory, animacy, and verb class in the processing of relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language 53(2): 204–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., and Kello, C.. 1993. Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 19(3): 528.Google ScholarPubMed
Tucker, M. A., Idrissi, A., and Almeida, D.. 2015. Representing number in the real-time processing of agreement: Self-paced reading evidence from Arabic. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tucker, M. A., Idrissi, A., and Almeida, D.. 2021. Attraction effects for verbal gender and number are similar but not identical: Self-paced reading evidence from Modern Standard Arabic. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 586464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Türk, U., and Logacev, P.. 2021. Agreement attraction in Turkish: The case of genitive attractors. PsyArXiv preprint. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5rmvu.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ueno, M., and Garnsey, S.. M. 2008. An ERP study of the processing of subject and object relative clauses in Japanese. Language and Cognitive Processes 23(5): 646–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ueno, M., and Polinsky, M.. 2009. Does headedness affect processing? A new look at the VO–OV contrast. Journal of Linguistics 45(3): 675–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dyke, J. A. 2007. Interference effects from grammatically unavailable constituents during sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 33(2): 407.Google ScholarPubMed
Van Dyke, J. A., and Lewis, R. L.. 2003. Distinguishing effects of structure and decay on attachment and repair: A cue-based parsing account of recovery from misanalyzed ambiguities. Journal of Memory and Language 49(3): 285–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dyke, J. A., and McElree, B.. 2006. Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 55(2): 157–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Dyke, J. A., and McElree, B. 2011. Cue-dependent interference in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 65(3): 247–263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Gompel, R. P., and Liversedge, S. P.. 2003. The influence of morphological information on cataphoric pronoun assignment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 29(1): 128.Google ScholarPubMed
Vasishth, S., and Gelman, A.. 2021. How to embrace variation and accept uncertainty in linguistic and psycholinguistic data analysis. Linguistics 59(5): 1311–1342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasishth, S., and Lewis, R. L.. 2006. Argument-head distance and processing complexity: Explaining both locality and antilocality effects. Language 82(4): 767–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasishth, S., Suckow, K., Lewis, R. L., and Kern, S.. 2010. Short-term forgetting in sentence comprehension: Crosslinguistic evidence from verb-final structures. Language and Cognitive Processes 25(4): 533–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, G., and Franck, J.. 1999. When sex and syntax go hand in hand: Gender agreement in language production. Journal of Memory and Language 40(4): 455–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villata, S., and Franck, J.. 2020. Similarity-based interference in agreement comprehension and production: Evidence from object agreement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 46(1): 170.Google ScholarPubMed
Wagers, M. 2008. The Structure of Memory Meets Memory for Structure in Linguistic Cognition. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Wagers, M. and McElree, B.. 2013. Working memory and language processing: Theory, data and directions for future research. In Boeckx, C. and Grohmann, K. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook for Biolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wagers, M., and Pendleton, E.. 2016. Structuring expectation: Licensing animacy in relative clause comprehension. In Proceedings of the 33rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 29–46.Google Scholar
Wagers, M., 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
Wagers, M., Borja, M. F., and Chung, S.. 2015. The real-time comprehension of wh-dependencies in a wh-agreement language. Language 91(1): 109–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagers, M., Borja, M. F., and Chung, S.. 2018. Grammatical licensing and relative clause parsing in a flexible word-order language. Cognition 178: 207–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagers, M., Borja, M. F., and Chung, S.. 2022. Processing reflexive pronouns when they don’t announce themselves. Glossa Psycholinguistics 1(1). https://doi.org/10.5070/G601174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, L., Schlesewsky, M., Bickel, B., and Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. 2009. Exploring the nature of the “subject”-preference: Evidence from the online comprehension of simple sentences in Mandarin Chinese. Language and Cognitive Processes 24(7–8): 1180–1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, F., Kaiser, E., and Vasishth, S.. 2018. Effects of early cues on the processing of Chinese relative clauses: Evidence for experience‐based theories. Cognitive Science 42: 1101–1133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yadav, H., Paape, D., Smith, G., Dillon, B., and Vasishth, S.. 2022. Individual differences in cue weighting in sentence comprehension: An evaluation using Approximate Bayesian Computation. Open Mind 6: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yadav, H., Smith, G., Reich, S., and Vasishth, S.. 2023. Number feature distortion modulates cue-based retrieval in reading. Journal of Memory and Language 129: 104400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yong, N. 2019. Cue-Based Reflexive Reference Resolution: Evidence from Korean Reflexive caki. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of New York.Google Scholar
Yoshida, M., Kazanina, N., Pablos, L., and Sturt, P.. 2014. On the origin of islands. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 29(7): 761–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhan, M., Levy, R., and Gibson, E.. 2017. Rational inference and sentence interpretation in Mandarin Chinese. Poster presented at the CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing.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.