II - Syntax–Semantics Interface
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 August 2019
Summary
Polarity-sensitive items are a peculiar kind of linguistic object. As Israel (2004, p. 207) notes: they are a class of items “which do not themselves express negation or affirmation, but which are restricted to sentences of one or the other polarity.” Broadly speaking, polarity items are expressions whose distribution is sensitive to contexts that express contradiction, contrariety, or reversal (Israel, 2004).
Idioms are also peculiar kinds of objects that have complex syntactic structure but behave like individual lexical units. It turns out that many polarity-sensitive items are idioms, and that intersection provides an interesting insight about both categories, which I will explore in this chapter.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Exploring Interfaces , pp. 109 - 208Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
References
Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española (2009). Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
Camacho, J. & Sánchez, L. (2017). Does the verb raise to T in Spanish? In Fernández-Soriano, O., Castroviejo, E., & Pérez-Jiménez, I., eds., Boundaries, Phases, and Interfaces: Case Studies in Honor of Violeta Demonte. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 48–62.Google Scholar
Cépeda, P. (2016). Against expletive negation: the case of Spanish hasta clauses. Paper presented at Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1968). Idiomaticity as an anomaly in the Chomskyan paradigm. Foundations of Language, 4, 109–27.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. (2004). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In Belletti, A., ed., Structures and Beyond. Oxford University Press, pp. 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G.(2006). Broaden your views: implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of language. Linguistic Inquiry, 37, 535–90.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G.(2013). Logic in Grammar Polarity, Free Choice, and Intervention. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Csipak, E. (2014). Minimizers in conditional threats and promises. In Etxeberria, U., Falaus, A., Irurtzun, A., & Leferman, B., eds., Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18, pp. 95–109. Retrieved from http://semanticsarchive.net/sub2013/SeparateArticles/Csipak.pdf.Google Scholar
Espinal, M. T. (1997). Non-negative negation and wh-exclamatives. In Forget, D., Hirschbühler, P., Martineau, F., & Rivero, M. L., eds., Negation and Polarity: Syntax and Semantics. Selected Papers from the Colloquium Negation: Syntax and Semantics, Ottawa. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 75–94.Google Scholar
Espinal, M. T.(2000a). Expletive negation, negative concord and feature checking. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics, 8, 47–69.Google Scholar
Espinal, M. T.(2000b). On the semantic status of n-words in Catalan and Spanish. Lingua, 110, 557–80.Google Scholar
Espinal, M. T. & Mateu, J. (2010). On classes of idioms and their interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(5), 1397–411.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1975). Pragmatic scales and logical structure. Linguistic inquiry, 6(3), 353–75.Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (1970). Idioms within a transformational grammar. Foundations of Language, 6, 22–42.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A.(1998). Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)Veridical Dependency. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, A.(1999). Weak and strong polarity: evidence from Greek. In Artemis, A., Horros, G. H., & Stavrou, M., eds., Studies in Greek Syntax. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 113–33.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A.(2011). Negative and positive polarity items. In von Heusinger, K., Maienborn, C., & Portner, P., eds., Handbook of Semantics. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 1660–712.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. & Zanuttini, R. (1991). Negative heads and the NEG criterion. The Linguistic Review, 8, 233–51.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1969). A presuppositional analysis of only and even. In Binnick, R., ed., Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 98–107.Google Scholar
Horn, L.(1970). Ain’t it hard (anymore). In Binnick, R., ed., Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 318–27.Google Scholar
Horn, L.(1972). On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English. University of California–Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Israel, M. (1996). Polarity sensitivity as lexical semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 19(6), 619–66.Google Scholar
Israel, M.(2004). The pragmatics of polarity. In Horn, L. & Ward, G., eds., The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 701–23.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1997). The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Katz, J. (1973). Compositionality, idiomaticity, and lexical substitution. In Anderson, S. R. & Kiparsky, P., eds., A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, pp. 357–76.Google Scholar
Katz, J. & Postal, P. (1964). An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. (2007). The semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(1), 1–45.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. (1995). The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis, 25, 209–57.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, W. A. (1980). Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Laka, I. (1990). Negation in syntax: on the nature of functional categories and projections (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1969). Some reasons why there can’t be any some–any rule. Language, 45, 608–15.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. (1975). On the semantics of negation. In Donald, W. L., Harper Hockney, J., & Freed, B., eds., Contemporary Research in Philosophical Logic and Linguistic Semantics. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 279–312.Google Scholar
Linebarger, M. (1987). Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 10(3), 325–87.Google Scholar
Mateu, J. & Espinal, M. T. (2007a). Laughing our heads off: when metaphor constrains aspect. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 33, 284–94.Google Scholar
Mateu, J. & Espinal, M. T.(2007b). Argument structure and compositionality in idiomatic constructions. The Linguistic Review, 24(1), 33–59.Google Scholar
McGinnis, M. (2002). On the systematic aspect of idioms. Linguistic Inquiry, 33, 665–72.Google Scholar
Mendívil Giró, J. L. (1999). Las palabras disgregadas: sintaxis de las expresiones idiomáticas y los predicados complejos. Universidad de Zaragoza.Google Scholar
Neubarth, F. (2006). Polarity, alternatives and scales (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Vienna.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W. (1998). The syntax of idioms. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 16(2), 279–312.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. & Torrego, E. (2001). T-to-C movement: causes and consequences. In Kenstowicz, M. & Keyser, S., eds., Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 355–426.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. & Torrego, E.(2004). Tense, case and the nature of syntactic categories. In Guéron, J. & Lecarme, J., eds., The Syntax of Time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 495–538.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. & Torrego, E.(2006). Probes, goals and syntactic categories. In Otsu, Y., ed., Proceedings of the Seventh Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo Publishing Company, pp. 25–60.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. & Torrego, E.(2007). The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Karimi, S., Samiian, V., & Wilkins, W., eds., Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 262–94.Google Scholar
Real Academia Española: CREA Corpus [online]. Corpus de referencia del español actual. www.rae.es.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. (2004). Positive polarity – negative polarity. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 22(2), 409–52.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1991). Path to realization: a typology of event conflation. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 17, 480–519.Google Scholar
Tubau, S. (2008). Negative concord in English and Romance: syntax–morphology interface conditions on the expression of negation (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
van der Linden, E. J. (1993). A Categorial Computational Theory of Idioms. Utrecht: OTS Dissertation Series.Google Scholar
Vicente, L. (2009). An alternative to remnant movement for partial predicate fronting. Syntax, 12(2), 180–213.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1994). A reinterpretation of evidence for verb movement in French. In Lightfoot, D. & Hornstein, N., eds., Verb Movement. Cambridge University Press, pp. 189–206.Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, H.(2013). Negation and negative polarity. In den Dikken, M., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax. Cambridge University Press, pp. 793–826.Google Scholar
References
Anderson, C. (2004). The structure and real-time comprehension of quantifier scope ambiguity (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Antonyuk, S. (2006). The scope of quantifier phrases in Russian: a QR analysis. In Linguistics in the Big Apple, CUNY/NYU Working Papers in Linguistics, www.researchgate.net/publication/228703341_The_Scope_of_Quantifier_Phrases_in_Russian_A_QR_Analysis.Google Scholar
Antonyuk, S. (2015). Quantifier scope and scope freezing in Russian (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
Bailyn, J. (1995). A configurational approach to Russian “free” word order (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.Google Scholar
Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S., & Polinsky, M. (2013). Heritage languages and their speakers: opportunities and challenges for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, 39, 129–81.Google Scholar
Bivon, R. (1971). Element order, Studies in the Modern Russian Language, 7. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Büring, D. (1997). The great scope inversion conspiracy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 175–94.Google Scholar
Cho, J. & Slabakova, R. (2014). Interpreting definiteness in a second language without articles: the case of L2 Russian. Second Language Research, 30, 159–90.Google Scholar
Chung, E. (2013). Sources of difficulty in L2 scope judgments. Second Language Research, 29, 285–310.Google Scholar
Fraundorf, S., Watson, D., & Benjamin, A. (2010). Recognition memory reveals just how CONTRASTIVE contrastive accenting really is. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 367–86.Google Scholar
Gut, U. (2009). Non-native speech: a corpus-based analysis of phonological and phonetic properties of L2 English and German. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Heim, I. & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hertel, T. (2003). Lexical and discourse factors in the second language acquisition of Spanish word order. Second Language Research, 14, 273–304.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. (2003). The one girl who was kissed by every boy: scope, scrambling and discourse function in Russian. In van Koppen, M., van der Torre, E. J., & Zimmermann, M., eds., Proceedings of ConSole X. Leiden: Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe, pp. 65–80.Google Scholar
Ionin, T.(2012). Morphosyntax. In Herschensohn, J. & Young-Scholten, M., eds., The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press, pp. 75–103.Google Scholar
Ionin, T.(2013). Pragmatic variation among specificity markers. In Ebert, C. & Hinterwimmer, S., eds., Different kinds of specificity across languages. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 75–103.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. & Luchkina, T. (2015). One reading for every word order: revisiting Russian scope. In Steindl, U., Borer, T., Fang, H., et al., eds., Proceedings of the 32nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 21–30.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. & Luchkina, T.(2017). The one kitten who was stroked by every girl: revisiting scope and scrambling in Russian. In Halpert, C., Kotek, H., & van Urk, C., eds., A pesky set: Papers for David Pesetsky. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, pp. 243–52.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. & Luchkina, T.(2018). Focus on Russian scope: an experimental investigation of the relationship between quantifier scope, prosody, and information structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 49(4), 741–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ioup, G. (1975). Some universals for quantifier scope. In Kimball, J. P., ed., Syntax and Semantics 4. New York: Academic Press, pp. 37–58.Google Scholar
Junghanns, U. & Zybatow, J. (1997). Syntax and information structure of Russian clauses. In Proceedings of the Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL): The Cornell Meeting. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 289–319.Google Scholar
King, T. H. (1995). Configuring topic and focus in Russian. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kurtzman, H. & MacDonald, M. (1993). Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Cognition, 48, 243–79.Google Scholar
Lee, T. H. T, Yip, V. & Wang, C. (1999). Rethinking isomorphisms: a scope principle for Chinese and English. In Sun, C., ed., Proceedings of the Tenth North American Chinese Linguistics Conference. Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California, pp. 169–86.Google Scholar
Lozano, C. (2006). Focus and split intransitivity: the acquisition of word order alternations in non-native Spanish. Second Language Research, 22, 145–87.Google Scholar
Luchkina, T. (2012). L1 & L2 word order processing in Russian. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum (SLRF 2012), University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
Luchkina, T. & Stoops, A. (2013). Cloze test as a measure of L2 Russian proficiency. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum (SLRF 2013), Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.Google Scholar
Marsden, H. (2004). Quantifier scope in non-native Japanese: a comparative interlanguage study of Chinese, English, and Korean-speaking learners (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Durham, UK.Google Scholar
Marsden, H.(2009). Distributive quantifier scope in English–Japanese and Korean–Japanese interlanguage. Language Acquisition, 16, 135–77.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2008). Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism: re-examining the age factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Montrul, S.(2010). Dominant language transfer in adult second language learners and heritage speakers. Second Language Research, 26, 293–327.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., Foote, R., & Perpiñán, S. (2008). Gender agreement in adult second language learners and Spanish heritage speakers: the effects of age and context of acquisition. Language Learning, 58, 503–53.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. & Ionin, T. (2012). Dominant language transfer in Spanish heritage speakers and L2 learners in the interpretation of definite articles. Modern Language Journal, 96, 70–94.Google Scholar
Nava, E. & Zubizarreta, M. L. (2009). Order of L2 acquisition of prosodic prominence patterns: evidence from L1 Spanish / L2 English speech. In Crawford, J., Otaki, K., & Takahashi, M., eds., Proceedings of GALANA 3. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 175–87.Google Scholar
Nava, E. & Zubizarreta, M. L.(2010). Deconstructing the Nuclear Stress Algorithm: evidence from second language speech. In Erteschik-Shir, N. & Rochman, L., eds., The sound patterns of syntax. Oxford University Press, pp. 291–316.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A. & Titov, E. (2009). Focus, contrast and stress in Russian. Linguistic Inquiry, 40, 514–24.Google Scholar
O’Neil, W. (1998). The rhythm rule in English and the growth of L2 knowledge. In Flynn, S., Martohardjono, G., & O’Neil, W., eds., The generative study of second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 333–7.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. (2007). Incomplete acquisition: American Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 14, 191–262.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M.(2008). Russian gender under incomplete acquisition. Heritage Language Journal, 6, 40–71.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M.(2011). Reanalysis in adult heritage language: a case for attrition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 305–28.Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2014). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, www.r-project.org.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer / Full Access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. & Sprouse, R.(2013). Generative approaches and the poverty of the stimulus. In Herschensohn, J. & Young-Scholten, M., eds., The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press, pp. 137–58.Google Scholar
Scontras, G., Polinsky, M., Tsai, C. Y. E., & Mai, K. (2017). Cross-linguistic scope ambiguity: when two systems meet. Glossa, 2(1), 36.Google Scholar
Scontras, G., Tsai, C. Y. E., Mai, K., & Polinsky, M. (2014). Chinese scope: an experimental investigation. In Etxeberria, U., Fălăuș, A., Irurtzun, A., & Leferman, B., eds., Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18, pp. 396–414. Retrieved from http://semanticsarchive.net/sub2013.Google Scholar
Sirotinina, O. B. (1965). Porjadok slov v russkom jazyke [“Word order in Russian”]. Saratov State University.Google Scholar
Sekerina, I. (2003). Scrambling processing: dependencies, complexity, and constraints. In Karimi, S., ed., Word order and scrambling. Cambridge: Blackwell, pp. 301–24.Google Scholar
Slioussar, N. (2011a). Russian and the EPP requirement in the tense domain. Lingua, 121, 2048–68.Google Scholar
Slioussar, N.(2011b). Processing of a free word order language: the role of syntax and context. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 40, 291–306.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2011). A validation of Amazon Mechanical Turk for the collection of acceptability judgments in linguistic theory. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 155–67.Google Scholar
Tremblay, A. (2011). Proficiency assessment standards in second language acquisition research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 339–72.Google Scholar
Tunstall, S. (1998). The interpretation of quantifiers: semantics and processing (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
White, L. & Mattys, S. L. (2007). Calibrating rhythm: first language and second language studies. Journal of Phonetics, 35, 501–22.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L., He, X., & Jonckheere, N. (2013). An L2 study on the production of stress patterns in English compounds. In Becher, M., Rothman, J., & Schwartz, B., eds., Generative linguistics and acquisition: studies in honor of Nina Hyams. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 185–204.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L., & Nava, E. (2011). Encoding discourse-based meaning: prosody vs. syntax. Implications for second language acquisition. Lingua, 121, 652–69.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L., & Vergnaud, J. R. (2005). Phrasal stress, focus, and syntax. In Everaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H., eds., The syntax companion. Cambridge: Blackwell, pp. 522–68.Google Scholar
Anderson, C. (2004). The structure and real-time comprehension of quantifier scope ambiguity (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Antonyuk, S. (2006). The scope of quantifier phrases in Russian: a QR analysis. In Linguistics in the Big Apple, CUNY/NYU Working Papers in Linguistics, www.researchgate.net/publication/228703341_The_Scope_of_Quantifier_Phrases_in_Russian_A_QR_Analysis.Google Scholar
Antonyuk, S. (2015). Quantifier scope and scope freezing in Russian (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
Bailyn, J. (1995). A configurational approach to Russian “free” word order (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.Google Scholar
Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S., & Polinsky, M. (2013). Heritage languages and their speakers: opportunities and challenges for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, 39, 129–81.Google Scholar
Bivon, R. (1971). Element order, Studies in the Modern Russian Language, 7. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Büring, D. (1997). The great scope inversion conspiracy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 175–94.Google Scholar
Cho, J. & Slabakova, R. (2014). Interpreting definiteness in a second language without articles: the case of L2 Russian. Second Language Research, 30, 159–90.Google Scholar
Chung, E. (2013). Sources of difficulty in L2 scope judgments. Second Language Research, 29, 285–310.Google Scholar
Fraundorf, S., Watson, D., & Benjamin, A. (2010). Recognition memory reveals just how CONTRASTIVE contrastive accenting really is. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 367–86.Google Scholar
Gut, U. (2009). Non-native speech: a corpus-based analysis of phonological and phonetic properties of L2 English and German. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Heim, I. & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hertel, T. (2003). Lexical and discourse factors in the second language acquisition of Spanish word order. Second Language Research, 14, 273–304.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. (2003). The one girl who was kissed by every boy: scope, scrambling and discourse function in Russian. In van Koppen, M., van der Torre, E. J., & Zimmermann, M., eds., Proceedings of ConSole X. Leiden: Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe, pp. 65–80.Google Scholar
Ionin, T.(2012). Morphosyntax. In Herschensohn, J. & Young-Scholten, M., eds., The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press, pp. 75–103.Google Scholar
Ionin, T.(2013). Pragmatic variation among specificity markers. In Ebert, C. & Hinterwimmer, S., eds., Different kinds of specificity across languages. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 75–103.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. & Luchkina, T. (2015). One reading for every word order: revisiting Russian scope. In Steindl, U., Borer, T., Fang, H., et al., eds., Proceedings of the 32nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 21–30.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. & Luchkina, T.(2017). The one kitten who was stroked by every girl: revisiting scope and scrambling in Russian. In Halpert, C., Kotek, H., & van Urk, C., eds., A pesky set: Papers for David Pesetsky. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, pp. 243–52.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. & Luchkina, T.(2018). Focus on Russian scope: an experimental investigation of the relationship between quantifier scope, prosody, and information structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 49(4), 741–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ioup, G. (1975). Some universals for quantifier scope. In Kimball, J. P., ed., Syntax and Semantics 4. New York: Academic Press, pp. 37–58.Google Scholar
Junghanns, U. & Zybatow, J. (1997). Syntax and information structure of Russian clauses. In Proceedings of the Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL): The Cornell Meeting. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 289–319.Google Scholar
King, T. H. (1995). Configuring topic and focus in Russian. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kurtzman, H. & MacDonald, M. (1993). Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Cognition, 48, 243–79.Google Scholar
Lee, T. H. T, Yip, V. & Wang, C. (1999). Rethinking isomorphisms: a scope principle for Chinese and English. In Sun, C., ed., Proceedings of the Tenth North American Chinese Linguistics Conference. Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California, pp. 169–86.Google Scholar
Lozano, C. (2006). Focus and split intransitivity: the acquisition of word order alternations in non-native Spanish. Second Language Research, 22, 145–87.Google Scholar
Luchkina, T. (2012). L1 & L2 word order processing in Russian. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum (SLRF 2012), University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
Luchkina, T. & Stoops, A. (2013). Cloze test as a measure of L2 Russian proficiency. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum (SLRF 2013), Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.Google Scholar
Marsden, H. (2004). Quantifier scope in non-native Japanese: a comparative interlanguage study of Chinese, English, and Korean-speaking learners (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Durham, UK.Google Scholar
Marsden, H.(2009). Distributive quantifier scope in English–Japanese and Korean–Japanese interlanguage. Language Acquisition, 16, 135–77.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2008). Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism: re-examining the age factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Montrul, S.(2010). Dominant language transfer in adult second language learners and heritage speakers. Second Language Research, 26, 293–327.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., Foote, R., & Perpiñán, S. (2008). Gender agreement in adult second language learners and Spanish heritage speakers: the effects of age and context of acquisition. Language Learning, 58, 503–53.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. & Ionin, T. (2012). Dominant language transfer in Spanish heritage speakers and L2 learners in the interpretation of definite articles. Modern Language Journal, 96, 70–94.Google Scholar
Nava, E. & Zubizarreta, M. L. (2009). Order of L2 acquisition of prosodic prominence patterns: evidence from L1 Spanish / L2 English speech. In Crawford, J., Otaki, K., & Takahashi, M., eds., Proceedings of GALANA 3. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 175–87.Google Scholar
Nava, E. & Zubizarreta, M. L.(2010). Deconstructing the Nuclear Stress Algorithm: evidence from second language speech. In Erteschik-Shir, N. & Rochman, L., eds., The sound patterns of syntax. Oxford University Press, pp. 291–316.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A. & Titov, E. (2009). Focus, contrast and stress in Russian. Linguistic Inquiry, 40, 514–24.Google Scholar
O’Neil, W. (1998). The rhythm rule in English and the growth of L2 knowledge. In Flynn, S., Martohardjono, G., & O’Neil, W., eds., The generative study of second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 333–7.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. (2007). Incomplete acquisition: American Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 14, 191–262.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M.(2008). Russian gender under incomplete acquisition. Heritage Language Journal, 6, 40–71.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M.(2011). Reanalysis in adult heritage language: a case for attrition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 305–28.Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2014). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, www.r-project.org.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer / Full Access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. & Sprouse, R.(2013). Generative approaches and the poverty of the stimulus. In Herschensohn, J. & Young-Scholten, M., eds., The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press, pp. 137–58.Google Scholar
Scontras, G., Polinsky, M., Tsai, C. Y. E., & Mai, K. (2017). Cross-linguistic scope ambiguity: when two systems meet. Glossa, 2(1), 36.Google Scholar
Scontras, G., Tsai, C. Y. E., Mai, K., & Polinsky, M. (2014). Chinese scope: an experimental investigation. In Etxeberria, U., Fălăuș, A., Irurtzun, A., & Leferman, B., eds., Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18, pp. 396–414. Retrieved from http://semanticsarchive.net/sub2013.Google Scholar
Sirotinina, O. B. (1965). Porjadok slov v russkom jazyke [“Word order in Russian”]. Saratov State University.Google Scholar
Sekerina, I. (2003). Scrambling processing: dependencies, complexity, and constraints. In Karimi, S., ed., Word order and scrambling. Cambridge: Blackwell, pp. 301–24.Google Scholar
Slioussar, N. (2011a). Russian and the EPP requirement in the tense domain. Lingua, 121, 2048–68.Google Scholar
Slioussar, N.(2011b). Processing of a free word order language: the role of syntax and context. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 40, 291–306.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2011). A validation of Amazon Mechanical Turk for the collection of acceptability judgments in linguistic theory. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 155–67.Google Scholar
Tremblay, A. (2011). Proficiency assessment standards in second language acquisition research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 339–72.Google Scholar
Tunstall, S. (1998). The interpretation of quantifiers: semantics and processing (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
White, L. & Mattys, S. L. (2007). Calibrating rhythm: first language and second language studies. Journal of Phonetics, 35, 501–22.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L., He, X., & Jonckheere, N. (2013). An L2 study on the production of stress patterns in English compounds. In Becher, M., Rothman, J., & Schwartz, B., eds., Generative linguistics and acquisition: studies in honor of Nina Hyams. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 185–204.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L., & Nava, E. (2011). Encoding discourse-based meaning: prosody vs. syntax. Implications for second language acquisition. Lingua, 121, 652–69.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L., & Vergnaud, J. R. (2005). Phrasal stress, focus, and syntax. In Everaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H., eds., The syntax companion. Cambridge: Blackwell, pp. 522–68.Google Scholar
Anderson, C. (2004). The structure and real-time comprehension of quantifier scope ambiguity (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Antonyuk, S. (2006). The scope of quantifier phrases in Russian: a QR analysis. In Linguistics in the Big Apple, CUNY/NYU Working Papers in Linguistics, www.researchgate.net/publication/228703341_The_Scope_of_Quantifier_Phrases_in_Russian_A_QR_Analysis.Google Scholar
Antonyuk, S. (2015). Quantifier scope and scope freezing in Russian (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
Bailyn, J. (1995). A configurational approach to Russian “free” word order (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.Google Scholar
Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S., & Polinsky, M. (2013). Heritage languages and their speakers: opportunities and challenges for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, 39, 129–81.Google Scholar
Bivon, R. (1971). Element order, Studies in the Modern Russian Language, 7. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Büring, D. (1997). The great scope inversion conspiracy. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 175–94.Google Scholar
Cho, J. & Slabakova, R. (2014). Interpreting definiteness in a second language without articles: the case of L2 Russian. Second Language Research, 30, 159–90.Google Scholar
Chung, E. (2013). Sources of difficulty in L2 scope judgments. Second Language Research, 29, 285–310.Google Scholar
Fraundorf, S., Watson, D., & Benjamin, A. (2010). Recognition memory reveals just how CONTRASTIVE contrastive accenting really is. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 367–86.Google Scholar
Gut, U. (2009). Non-native speech: a corpus-based analysis of phonological and phonetic properties of L2 English and German. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Heim, I. & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hertel, T. (2003). Lexical and discourse factors in the second language acquisition of Spanish word order. Second Language Research, 14, 273–304.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. (2003). The one girl who was kissed by every boy: scope, scrambling and discourse function in Russian. In van Koppen, M., van der Torre, E. J., & Zimmermann, M., eds., Proceedings of ConSole X. Leiden: Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe, pp. 65–80.Google Scholar
Ionin, T.(2012). Morphosyntax. In Herschensohn, J. & Young-Scholten, M., eds., The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press, pp. 75–103.Google Scholar
Ionin, T.(2013). Pragmatic variation among specificity markers. In Ebert, C. & Hinterwimmer, S., eds., Different kinds of specificity across languages. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 75–103.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. & Luchkina, T. (2015). One reading for every word order: revisiting Russian scope. In Steindl, U., Borer, T., Fang, H., et al., eds., Proceedings of the 32nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 21–30.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. & Luchkina, T.(2017). The one kitten who was stroked by every girl: revisiting scope and scrambling in Russian. In Halpert, C., Kotek, H., & van Urk, C., eds., A pesky set: Papers for David Pesetsky. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, pp. 243–52.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. & Luchkina, T.(2018). Focus on Russian scope: an experimental investigation of the relationship between quantifier scope, prosody, and information structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 49(4), 741–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ioup, G. (1975). Some universals for quantifier scope. In Kimball, J. P., ed., Syntax and Semantics 4. New York: Academic Press, pp. 37–58.Google Scholar
Junghanns, U. & Zybatow, J. (1997). Syntax and information structure of Russian clauses. In Proceedings of the Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL): The Cornell Meeting. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 289–319.Google Scholar
King, T. H. (1995). Configuring topic and focus in Russian. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kurtzman, H. & MacDonald, M. (1993). Resolution of quantifier scope ambiguities. Cognition, 48, 243–79.Google Scholar
Lee, T. H. T, Yip, V. & Wang, C. (1999). Rethinking isomorphisms: a scope principle for Chinese and English. In Sun, C., ed., Proceedings of the Tenth North American Chinese Linguistics Conference. Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California, pp. 169–86.Google Scholar
Lozano, C. (2006). Focus and split intransitivity: the acquisition of word order alternations in non-native Spanish. Second Language Research, 22, 145–87.Google Scholar
Luchkina, T. (2012). L1 & L2 word order processing in Russian. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum (SLRF 2012), University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
Luchkina, T. & Stoops, A. (2013). Cloze test as a measure of L2 Russian proficiency. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum (SLRF 2013), Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.Google Scholar
Marsden, H. (2004). Quantifier scope in non-native Japanese: a comparative interlanguage study of Chinese, English, and Korean-speaking learners (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Durham, UK.Google Scholar
Marsden, H.(2009). Distributive quantifier scope in English–Japanese and Korean–Japanese interlanguage. Language Acquisition, 16, 135–77.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2008). Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism: re-examining the age factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Montrul, S.(2010). Dominant language transfer in adult second language learners and heritage speakers. Second Language Research, 26, 293–327.Google Scholar
Montrul, S., Foote, R., & Perpiñán, S. (2008). Gender agreement in adult second language learners and Spanish heritage speakers: the effects of age and context of acquisition. Language Learning, 58, 503–53.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. & Ionin, T. (2012). Dominant language transfer in Spanish heritage speakers and L2 learners in the interpretation of definite articles. Modern Language Journal, 96, 70–94.Google Scholar
Nava, E. & Zubizarreta, M. L. (2009). Order of L2 acquisition of prosodic prominence patterns: evidence from L1 Spanish / L2 English speech. In Crawford, J., Otaki, K., & Takahashi, M., eds., Proceedings of GALANA 3. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 175–87.Google Scholar
Nava, E. & Zubizarreta, M. L.(2010). Deconstructing the Nuclear Stress Algorithm: evidence from second language speech. In Erteschik-Shir, N. & Rochman, L., eds., The sound patterns of syntax. Oxford University Press, pp. 291–316.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A. & Titov, E. (2009). Focus, contrast and stress in Russian. Linguistic Inquiry, 40, 514–24.Google Scholar
O’Neil, W. (1998). The rhythm rule in English and the growth of L2 knowledge. In Flynn, S., Martohardjono, G., & O’Neil, W., eds., The generative study of second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 333–7.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. (2007). Incomplete acquisition: American Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 14, 191–262.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M.(2008). Russian gender under incomplete acquisition. Heritage Language Journal, 6, 40–71.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M.(2011). Reanalysis in adult heritage language: a case for attrition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 305–28.Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2014). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, www.r-project.org.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer / Full Access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. & Sprouse, R.(2013). Generative approaches and the poverty of the stimulus. In Herschensohn, J. & Young-Scholten, M., eds., The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press, pp. 137–58.Google Scholar
Scontras, G., Polinsky, M., Tsai, C. Y. E., & Mai, K. (2017). Cross-linguistic scope ambiguity: when two systems meet. Glossa, 2(1), 36.Google Scholar
Scontras, G., Tsai, C. Y. E., Mai, K., & Polinsky, M. (2014). Chinese scope: an experimental investigation. In Etxeberria, U., Fălăuș, A., Irurtzun, A., & Leferman, B., eds., Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18, pp. 396–414. Retrieved from http://semanticsarchive.net/sub2013.Google Scholar
Sirotinina, O. B. (1965). Porjadok slov v russkom jazyke [“Word order in Russian”]. Saratov State University.Google Scholar
Sekerina, I. (2003). Scrambling processing: dependencies, complexity, and constraints. In Karimi, S., ed., Word order and scrambling. Cambridge: Blackwell, pp. 301–24.Google Scholar
Slioussar, N. (2011a). Russian and the EPP requirement in the tense domain. Lingua, 121, 2048–68.Google Scholar
Slioussar, N.(2011b). Processing of a free word order language: the role of syntax and context. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 40, 291–306.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2011). A validation of Amazon Mechanical Turk for the collection of acceptability judgments in linguistic theory. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 155–67.Google Scholar
Tremblay, A. (2011). Proficiency assessment standards in second language acquisition research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 339–72.Google Scholar
Tunstall, S. (1998). The interpretation of quantifiers: semantics and processing (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
White, L. & Mattys, S. L. (2007). Calibrating rhythm: first language and second language studies. Journal of Phonetics, 35, 501–22.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L., He, X., & Jonckheere, N. (2013). An L2 study on the production of stress patterns in English compounds. In Becher, M., Rothman, J., & Schwartz, B., eds., Generative linguistics and acquisition: studies in honor of Nina Hyams. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 185–204.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L., & Nava, E. (2011). Encoding discourse-based meaning: prosody vs. syntax. Implications for second language acquisition. Lingua, 121, 652–69.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L., & Vergnaud, J. R. (2005). Phrasal stress, focus, and syntax. In Everaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H., eds., The syntax companion. Cambridge: Blackwell, pp. 522–68.Google Scholar
References
Alexiadou, A. (2002). Word order patterns in Greek nominals: aspects of diachronic change. ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 27, 91–107.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. & Stavrou, M. (2001). Adjective–clitic combinations in the Greek DP. In Gerlach, B. & Grijzenhout, J., eds., Clitics in phonology, morphology and syntax. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 63–84.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, E. (2003). The syntax of ditransitives: evidence from clitics. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, E.(2005). Cross-linguistic and cross-categorial variation of datives. In Stavrou, M. & Terzi, A., eds., Advances in Greek generative grammar: in honor of Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 61–126.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, E. & Everaert, M. (1999). Toward a more complete typology of anaphoric expressions. Linguistic Inquiry, 30(1), 97–119.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, E. & Everaert, M.(2013). Identifying anaphoric dependencies. In Cheng, L. & Corver, N., eds., Diagnosing syntax. Oxford University Press, pp. 340–70.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, E. & Sevdali, C. (2016). Two modes of dative and genitive case assignment: evidence from two stages of Greek. Ms., University of Crete and Ulster University.Google Scholar
Baker, M. C. (2015). Case: its principles and its parameters. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Botwinik-Rotem, I. & Terzi, A. (2008). Greek and Hebrew locative prepositional phrases: a unified Case-driven account. Lingua, 118(3), 399–424.Google Scholar
Charnavel, I. & Zlogar, C. (2016). English reflexive logophors. In Ershova, Ksenia, Falk, Joshua, and Geiger, Jeffrey, eds., Proceedings of CLS 51. Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 83–97.Google Scholar
Chiou, M. (2007). NP-anaphora in Modern Greek: a neo-Gricean pragmatic approach (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Reading University.Google Scholar
Daskalaki, E. & Mavrogiorgos, M. (2016). Two ways of encoding location in Greek: locative applicatives and prepositions. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 1(16), 1–33.Google Scholar
den Dikken, M. (2006). Relators and linkers: the syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halpern, A. (1995). On the morphology and placement of clitics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Holton, D., Mackridge, P., & Philippaki-Warburton, I. (2004). An essential grammar of the Modern Greek language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Iatridou, S. (1986). An anaphor not bound in its governing category. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 766–72.Google Scholar
Iatridou, S.(1991). Clitic left dislocations and island effects. Ms., MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Iatridou, S.(1995). Clitics and island effects. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 2(1), 11–30.Google Scholar
Kordoni, V. (2001). Linking experiencer–subject psych verb constructions in Modern Greek. In Flickinger, D. & Kathol, A., eds., Proceedings of the 7th International HPSG Conference, UC Berkeley (22–23 July, 2000). Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 198–213.Google Scholar
Lechner, W. & Anagnostopoulou, E. (2005). Clitics and adjacency in Greek PPs. In Broekhuis, H., Corver, N., Koster, J., Huybregts, R., & Kleinhenz, U., eds., Organizing grammar: Llinguistic studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 390–406.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (1991). Case and licensing. In Westphal, G. F., Ao, B., and Chae, H.-R., eds., Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistics Club, pp. 234–53.Google Scholar
Mavrogiorgos, M. (2009). CT and the EPP: deriving enclisis in Modern Greek. In Halpert, C., Hartman, J., & Hill, D., eds., MITWPL 57: Proceedings of the 2007 Workshop in Greek Syntax and Semantics at MIT. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL, pp. 139–54.Google Scholar
Merchant, J. (2009). Phrasal and clausal comparatives in Greek and the abstractness of syntax. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 9(1), 134–64.Google Scholar
Merchant, J.(2012). The two phrasal comparatives of Greek. Accepted with revisions for Natural Language & Linguistic Theory.Google Scholar
Pancheva, R. (2009). Directionality of cliticization: comments on Mavrogiorgos’ “C-T and the EPP: deriving enclisis in Modern Greek.” In Halpert, C., Hartman, J., & Hill, D., eds., MITWPL 57: Proceedings of the 2007 Workshop in Greek Syntax and Semantics at MIT. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL, pp. 155–70.Google Scholar
Schneider-Zioga, P. (1994). The syntax of clitic doubling in Modern Greek (doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.Google Scholar
Schneider-Zioga, P.(1998). A predication analysis of clitic pronouns in Greek. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 28. Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association, pp. 183–96.Google Scholar
Terzi, A. (1991). Genitive clitics of prepositions. Ms., City University of New York Graduate Center.Google Scholar
Terzi, A.(2008). Locative prepositions as modifiers of an unpronounced noun. In Chang, C. and Haynie, H., eds. Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Casacdilla Proceedings Project, pp. 471–9. Retrieved from www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/26/paper1704.pdf.Google Scholar
Terzi, A.(2010). Locative prepositions and place. In Cinque, G. & Rizzi, L., eds., Mapping spatial PPs: the cartography of syntactic structures, Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax, 6. Oxford University Press, pp. 196–224.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L. (1999) The cl(itic) projection in questions. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics, 7, 253–77.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L.(2007). The left edge in the Spanish clausal structure. In Masullo, P., O’Rourke, E., & Huang, C.-H., eds., Romance Linguistics 2007: selected papers from the 37th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Pittsburgh, 15–18 March 2007. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, pp. 339–57.Google Scholar