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

Baker, Mark 1997. “Thematic Roles and Syntactic Structure.” In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, Kluwer International Handbook of Linguistics. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 73–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barss, Andrew and Lasnik, Howard. 1986. “A Note on Anaphora and Double Objects.” Linguistic Inquiry 17: 347–354.Google Scholar

Belletti, Adriana and Rizzi, Luigi. 1988. “Psych Verbs and Theta Theory.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 291–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benveniste, E. 1966. Problèmes de Linguistique Générale. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar

Bleam, Tonia. 1999. “Leísta Spanish and the Syntax of Clitic Doubling.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Delaware.Google Scholar

Bleam, Tonia. 2003. “Properties of the Double Object Construction in Spanish.” In Núñez-Cedeño, Rafael, López, Luis, and Cameron, Richard (eds.), A Romance Perspective on Language Knowledge and Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 233–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bleam, Tonia and Lidz, Jeffrey. In prep. “Towards a Unified Analysis of Ditransitive Alternations across Languages.” MS., University of Maryland.Google Scholar

Bobaljik, J. D. and Brown, S.. 1997. “Interarboreal Operations: Head Movement and the Extension Requirement.” Linguistic Inquiry 28(2): 345–356.Google Scholar

Boeckx, Cedric, Hornstein, Norbert, and Nunes, Jairo. 2010. Control as Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bruening, Benjamin. 2000. “QR Obeys Superiority: Frozen Scope and ACD.” Linguistic Inquiry 32: 233–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures in Government and Binding. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Cuervo, María Cristina. 2003. “Datives at Large.” Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Demonte, Violeta. 1995. “Dative Alternation in Spanish.” Probus 7: 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Particles. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dowty, David. 1978. “Governed Transformations as Lexical Rules in a Montague Grammar.” Linguistic Inquiry 9: 393–426.Google Scholar

Emonds, Joseph. 1972. “Evidence that Indirect Object Movement is a Structure-Preserving Rule.” Foundations of Language 8: 546–561.Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles. 1965. Indirect Object Constructions in English and the Ordering of Transformations. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Freeze, R. 1992. “Existentials and Other Locatives.” Language 68: 553–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Freynik, Suzanne. 2012. “Quantifier-Variable Binding in L2 Spanish Ditransitives.” Ms., University of Maryland.Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele. 1995. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Green, Georgia. 1974. Semantics and Syntactic Regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel J.. 1993. “On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations.” In Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel J. (eds.), The View from Building 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 53–109.Google Scholar

Halle, Morris and Marantz, Alec. 1993. “Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection.” In Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel J. (eds.), The View from Building 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 111–176.Google Scholar

Harley, Heidi. 1995. “If You Have, You Can Give.” In Agbayani, Brian and Tang, Sze-Wing (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 15. Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp. 193–207.Google Scholar

Harley, Heidi. 2002. “Possession and the Double Object Construction.” Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2(1): 31–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Hornstein, Norbert. 2009. A Theory of Syntax: Minimal Operations and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 1990a. “On Larson's Treatment of the Doubled Object Construction.” Linguistic Inquiry 21: 427–456.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 1990b. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jayaseelan, K. A. 2002. “IP-internal Topic and Focus Phrases.” Studia Linguistica 55: 39–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kayne, Richard. 1975. French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kayne, Richard. 1981. “Unambiguous Paths.” In May, Robert and Koster, Jan (eds.), Levels of Syntactic Representation. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 143–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kayne, Richard. 1984. Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kayne, Richard. 1993. “Towards a Modular Theory of Auxiliary Selection.” Studia Linguistica 47: 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. “Severing the External Argument from its Verb.” In Rooryck, Johan and Zaring, Laurie (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 109–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Larson, Richard. 1988. “On the Double Object Construction.” Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–391.Google Scholar

Larson, Richard. 1990. “Double Objects Revisited: Reply to Jackendoff.” Linguistic Inquiry 2: 333–378.Google Scholar

Larson, Richard. 2010. “On Pylkkänen's Semantics for Low Applicatives.” Linguistic Inquiry 41: 701–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Larson, Richard. 2014. On Shell Structure. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lasnik, Howard. 1999. “Chains of Arguments.” In Epstein, S. and Hornstein, N. (eds.), Working Minimalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 189–215.Google Scholar

Lebeaux, David. 1998. “Where Does the Binding Theory Apply?” Ms., NEC Research Institute.Google Scholar

Lidz, J. 2002. “Two Structures for Kannada Ditransitives.” Paper presented at South Asian Languages Analysis Roundtable 22.Google Scholar

Lidz, J. and Williams, A.. 2005. “C-locality and the Interaction of Reflexives and Ditransitives.” In Moulton, K. and Wolf, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society Annual Meeting (NELS) 34, Vol. II. New York: Stony Brook University, pp. 389–404.Google Scholar

Lidz, J. and Williams, A.. 2006. “On the Lack of Reflexive Benefactives in Kannada.” In Battacharya, T. (ed.), Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 237–254.Google Scholar

Marantz, Alec. 1982. “Affixation and the Syntax of Applied Verb Constructions.” In Flicklinger, D. P. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 17. Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp. 330–340.Google Scholar

Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Marantz, Alec. 1988. “Clitics, Morphological Merger, and the Mapping to Phonological Structure.” In Hammon, Michael and Noonan, Michael (eds.), Theoretical Morphology. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 253–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Masullo, Pascual. 1992. “Incorporation and Case Theory in Spanish: A Crosslinguistic Perspective.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar

McGinnis, Martha. 2003. “Variation in the Phase Structure of Applicatives.” In Rooryck, Johan and Pica, Pierre (eds.), Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 105–146.Google Scholar

Nakanishi, Kimiko. 2001. “Indefinites and Frozen Scope in Japanese: Restriction on QR and Choice Functions.” In Megerdoomian, Karine and Anne Bar-el, Leora (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 20. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 101–114.Google Scholar

Nunes, Jairo. 1995. “The Copy Theory of Movement and the Linearization of Chains.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar

Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Oehrle, Richard. 1976. “The Grammatical Status of the English Dative Alternation.” Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Ormazabal, Javier and Romero, Juan. 1999. “On the Syntactic Nature of the Me-lui and the Person-Case Constraint.” Ms., University of the Basque Country and MIT.Google Scholar

Ormazabal, Javier and Romero, Juan. 2010. “The Derivation of Dative Alternations.” In Duguine, M., Huidobro, S., and Madariaga, N. (eds.), Argument Structure and Syntactic Relations from a Crosslinguistic Perspective. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 203–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Pietroski, Paul. 2005. Events and Semantic Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. “Introducing Arguments.” Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Rappaport-Hovav, Malka and Levin, Beth. 2008. “The English Dative Alternation: The Case for Verb Sensitivity.” Journal of Linguistics 44: 129–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Snyder, Kieran M. 2003. “The Relationship between *Form and *Function in Ditransitive Constructions.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Uriagereka, Juan. 1988. “On Government.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar

Uriagereka, Juan. 1998. Rhyme and Reason: An Introduction to Minimalist Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Alexiadou, A. and Anagnostopoulou, E.. 2001. The subject-in-situ generalization and the role of case in driving computations. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 193–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E., Iordachioia, G., and Marchis, M.. 2010. No objections to backward control. In Hornstein, N. and Polinsky, M. (eds.), Movement Theory of Control. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 89–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Belletti, A. 1990. Generalized Verb Movement Aspects of Verb Syntax. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google Scholar

Belletti, A. 2007. Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: evidence from near native Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25.4: 657–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bobaljik, J. and Jonas, D.. 1996. Subject positions and the roles of TP. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 195–236.Google Scholar

Cardinaletti, A. 2004. Towards a cartography of subject positions. In Rizzi, L. (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP. New York: Oxford University Press, 115–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cardinaletti, A. and Shlonsky, U.. 2004. Clitic positions and restructuring in Italian. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 519–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cinque, G. 2006. Restructuring and Functional Heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Costa, J. 1997. On the behavior of adverbs in sentence-final context. The Linguistic Review 14: 43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gallego, Á. 2013. Object shift in Romance. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31: 409–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Guasti, M. T. 1993. Causative and Perception Verbs: A Comparative Study. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google Scholar

Hinterhölzl, R. 2005. Scrambling, Remnant Movement, and Restructuring in West Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Homer, V., Ishizuka, T., and Sportiche, D.. 2009. The locality of clitic placement and the analysis of French causatives. Paper presented at the 7th GLOW in Asia Conference (GLOW Asia 7). The English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad, India.Google Scholar

Hornstein, H. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kayne, R. 1975. French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kayne, R. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Koopman, H. and Szabolsci, A.. 2000. Verbal Complexes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Motapanyane, V. 1995. Theoretical Implications of Complementation in Romanian. Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar

Nicolis, M. 2001. L-Tous, restructuring, and quantifier climbing. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 26: 63–84.Google Scholar

Ordóñez, F. 1998. Post-verbal asymmetries in Spanish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 313–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ordóñez, F. 2007. Cartography of postverbal subjects in Spanish and Catalan. In Baauw, S., Drijkoningen, F., and Pinto, M. (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 259–281.Google Scholar

Ortega-Santos, , I. 2016. Focus-Related Operations at the Right Edge in Spanish: Subjects and Ellipsis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Piera, Carlos. 1987. Sobre la estructura de las cláusulas de infinitivo. In Demonte, V. and Fernández, L. (eds.), Sintaxis de las lenguas románicas. Madrid: Arco Libros, 148–166.Google Scholar

Polinsky, M. and Potsdam, E.. 2002. Backward control. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 245–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Polinsky, M. and Potsdam, E. 2006. Expanding the scope of control and raising. Syntax 9: 171–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rizzi, L. 1976. Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Rizzi, L. 1996. Residual verb second and the wh-criterion. In Belletti, A. and Rizzi, L. (eds.), Parameters and Functional Heads: Essays in Comparative Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 63–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rosselló, J. 2002. El SV i arguments verbals. In Solà, J. (ed.), Gramàtica del Català contemporani. Barcelona: Empúries, 1853–1949.Google Scholar

Sánchez López, C. 1993. Una anomalía del sistema pronominal español. Dicenda. Cuadernos de Filología Hispánica 11: 259–284.Google Scholar

Solà, Jaume. 1992. Agreement and subjects. Doctoral dissertation. Bellaterra, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. http://filcat.uab.cat/clt/publicacions/tesis/pdf/Sola.pdf.Google Scholar

Torrego, E. 1996. On Quantifier Float in control clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 111–126.Google Scholar

Vallduví, E. 2002. L'oració com a Unitat Informativa. In Solà, J. (ed.), Gramàtica del Català Contemporari. Barcelona: Empúries, 1221–1279.Google Scholar

Agüero-Bautista, Calixto. 2007. Diagnosing cyclicity in sluicing. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 413–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aoun, Joseph and Li, Audrey. 1993. The syntax of scope. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan W. 1970. On complementizers: Towards a syntactic theory of complement types. Foundations of Language 6: 297–321.Google Scholar

Chierchia, Gennaro. 1993. Questions with quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics 1: 181–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1955. The logical structure of linguistic theory. Ms. Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. and MIT, Cambridge, Mass. [Revised 1956 version published in part by Plenum, New York, 1975. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985.]Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1964. Current issues in linguistic theory. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1972. Some empirical issues in the theory of transformational grammar. In Goals of linguistic theory, ed. Peters, Paul Stanley, 63–130. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. Anderson, Stephen and Kiparsky, Paul, 232–286. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Formal syntax, ed. Culicover, Peter, Wasow, Thomas, and Akmajian, Adrian, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Felser, Claudia. 2004. Wh-copying, phases, and successive cyclicity. Lingua 114: 543–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fukui, Naoki and Speas, Margaret. 1986. Specifiers and projection. In MIT working papers in linguistics 8, 128–172.Google Scholar

Grano, Thomas and Lasnik, Howard. In press. How to neutralize a finite clause boundary: Phase theory and the grammar of bound pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry. 49, 3.Google Scholar

Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar

Kayne, Richard. 1983. Connectedness. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 223–249. [Reprinted in Kayne, Richard. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.]Google Scholar

Kayne, Richard. 1998. Overt vs. covert movement. Syntax 1: 128–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Making a pronoun: Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 187–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Larson, Richard and May, Robert. 1990. Antecedent containment or vacuous movement: Reply to Baltin. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 103–122.Google Scholar

Lasnik, Howard and Saito, Mamoru. 1984. On the nature of proper government. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 235–289. [Reprinted in Lasnik, Howard, Essays on restrictiveness and learnability, 198–255. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1990.]Google Scholar

Lasnik, Howard and Saito, Mamoru 1992. Move α. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Lasnik, Howard and Uriagereka, Juan (with Cedric Boeckx). 2005. A course in minimalist syntax: Foundations and prospects. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

May, Robert. 1977. The grammar of quantification. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar

May, Robert. 1985. Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

May, Robert. 1988. Ambiguities of quantification and wh: A reply to Williams. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 118–135.Google Scholar

Postal, Paul M. 1974. On raising: One rule of English grammar and its theoretical implications. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 1978. A restructuring rule in Italian syntax. In Recent transformational studies in European languages, ed. Jay Keyser, Samuel, 113–158. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 1980. Violations of the wh-island constraint and the Subjacency condition. Journal of Italian Linguistics 5: 157–195.Google Scholar

Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. [Published as Infinite syntax! Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1986.]Google Scholar

Sloan, Kelly. 1991. Quantifier-wh interaction. In MIT Working Paper in Linguistics 15, 219–237.Google Scholar

Sloan, Kelly and Uriagereka, Juan. 1988. What does “everyone” have scope over? Paper presented at the Generative Linguists in the Old World (GLOW) Conference. Budapest.Google Scholar

Sportiche, Dominique. 1981. Bounding nodes in French. The Linguistic Review 1: 219–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Uriagereka, Juan. 1988. On government. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar

Williams, Edwin. 1986. A reassignment of the functions of LF. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 265–299.Google Scholar

Williams, Edwin. 1988. Is LF distinct from S-structure? A reply to May. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 135–146.Google Scholar

Acquaviva, P. 1997. The Logical Form of Negation. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics. Revised edn. New York: Garland Science.Google Scholar

Baunaz, L. 2011. The Grammar of French Quantification. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 83. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Beghelli, F. & Stowell, T.. 1997. “Distributivity and negation: The syntax of each and every,” in Szabolcsi, A. (ed.), Ways of Scope Taking. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 71–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 1990. Types of A-bar Dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Corver, N. 1997. “The internal syntax of the Dutch extended adjectival projection,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15, 289–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Etxepare, R. 1997. “On the grammatical representation of speech events,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar

Etxepare, R. & Uribe-Etxebarria, M.. 2005. “Wh-phrases in-situ in Spanish: Scope and locality,” Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 33, 9–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Etxepare, R. & Uribe-Etxebarria, M.. 2008. “On negation and focus in Spanish and Basque,” in Artiagoitia, X. & Lakarra, J. (eds.), Gramatika jaietan: Patxi Goenaga irakaslearen omenaldiz. Special issue of International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology. UPV/EHU, Bilbao, 287–309.Google Scholar

Etxepare, R. & Uribe-Etxebarria, M.. 2012. “Las preguntas de Qu-in situ en español: un análisis derivacional,” in Brucart, J. M. & Gallego, Á. (eds.), El movimiento de constituyentes. Madrid: Visor, 247–268.Google Scholar

González, R. 2008. “La polaridad positiva en español,” Ph.D. dissertation, Universidad Complutense and Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset, Madrid.Google Scholar

Herburger, E. 2000. What Counts: Focus and Quantification. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Horn, L. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Israel, M. 2011. The Grammar of Polarity: Pragmatics, Sensitivity, and the Logic of Scales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kim, J. B. & Sag, I.. 2002. “Negation without head movement,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20, 339–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kiss, K. E. 2002. A Grammar of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Klima, E. S. 1964. “Negation in English,” in Fodor, J. & Katz, J. (eds.), The Structure of Language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 246–323.Google Scholar

REAL ACADEMIA ESPAÑOLA: Banco de datos (CREA) [en línea]. Corpus de referencia del español actual (“Reference Corpus of Contemporary Spanish”). Available at www.rae.es.Google Scholar

Rivero, M. L. 1970. “A surface structure constraint on negation in Spanish,” Language 46(3), 640–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rizzi, L. 1997. “The fine structure of the left periphery,” in Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of Grammar: A Handbook of Generative Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 281–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rooth, M. 1992. “A theory of focus interpretation,” Natural Language Semantics 1, 75–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sánchez-López, C. 1999. “La negación,” in Bosque, I. & Demonte, V. (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua Española, Vol. II. Madrid: Espasa, 2561–2634.Google Scholar

Temmerman, T. 2012. “Multidominance, ellipsis, and quantifier scope,” Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar

Uriagereka, J. 2008. Syntactic Anchors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Uribe-Etxebarria, M. 2002. “In situ questions and masked movement,” Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2, 259–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zeljstra, H. 2013. “Not in the first place,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31, 865–900.Google Scholar

Alexiadou, Artemis. 1994. “Issues in the syntax of adverbs,” unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Potsdam.Google Scholar

Borgonovo, Claudia. 2001. “Mood and focus,” in Quer, Josep, Schoten, Jan, Scorreti, Mauro, Sleeman, Petra, and Verheugd, Els (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2001: Selected Papers from Going Romance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 17–30.Google Scholar

Bosque, Ignacio. 1980. Sobre la negación. Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar

Cheng, Lisa and Downing, Laura. 2012. “Prosodic domains do not match spell out domains,” McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 22 (Winter): 1–14.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2000. “Minimalist inquiries: The framework,” in Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by Step. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 89–155.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2001. “Derivation by phase,” in Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–52.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2004. “Beyond explanatory adequacy,” in Belletti, Adriana (ed.), Structures and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 104–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2008. “On phases,” in Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos, and Zubizarreta, María-Luisa (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 133–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cinque, Giglielmo. 1990. Types of A’-dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Davidson, Donald. 1967. “Causal relations,” Journal of Philosophy 64: 691–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dobrovi-Sorin, Carmen. 2001. “Head-to-head Merge in Balkan subjunctives and locality,” in Rivero, María-Luisa and Ralli, Angela (eds.), Comparative Syntax of the Balkan Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 44–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Emonds, Joseph E. 1976. A Transformational Approach to English Syntax: Root, Structure Preserving and Local Transformations. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Gallego, Angel J. 2010. Phase Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grosu, Alexander and Horvath, Julia. 1984. “The GB theory and raising in Rumanian,” Linguistic Inquiry 15: 348–353.Google Scholar

Haegeman, Liliane. 2004. “The syntax of adverbial clauses and its consequences for topicalization,” in Coene, Martine, de Cuyper, Greet, and D'Hulst, Yves (eds.), Current Studies in Comparative Romance Linguistics. Antwerp: University of Antwerp, 61–90.Google Scholar

Hirschberg, Julia and Avesani, Cinzi. 1997. “The role of prosody in disambiguating potentially ambiguous utterances in English and Italian,” in Botinis, Antonis, Kouroupetroglou, G., and Carayiannis, G. (eds.), Intonation: Theory, Models and Applications. Athens: ESCA/University of Athens, 189–192.Google Scholar

Kempchinsky, Paula. 2000. “Prosodic disambiguation in English and Italian,” in Botinis, Anonis (ed.), Intonation. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 87–96.Google Scholar

Hooper, Joan and Thompson, Sandra. 1973. “On the applicability of root transformations,” Linguistic Inquiry 4: 465–497.Google Scholar

Horvath, Julia. 2007. “Separating ‘focus movement’ from focus,” in Karimi, Simin, Samian, Vida, and Wilkins, Wendy (eds.), Phrasal and Clausal Architecture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 108–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2007. “Major phrase, focus intonation, multiple spell-out,” Linguistic Review 34: 137–167.Google Scholar

Johnston, Michael. 1993. “Because-clauses and negative polarity licensing,” in Kathol, Andres (ed.), Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) 93. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 163–174.Google Scholar

Kayne, Richard. 1981. “On certain differences between French and English,” Linguistic Inquiry 12: 349–371.Google Scholar

Kempchinsky, Paula. 1986. “Romance subjunctive clauses,” unpublished Ph.D. thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar

Kempchinsky, Paula. 2009. “What can the subjunctive disjoint reference effect tell us about the subjunctive?” Lingua 119: 1788–1810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kratzer, Angelika and Selkirk, Elizabeth. 2007. “Phase theory and prosodic spellout: the case of verbs,” The Linguistic Review 24(2–3): 93–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Laka, Itziar. 1990. “Negation in syntax,” unpublished Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar

Larson, Richard. 1988. “On the double object construction,” Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–391.Google Scholar

Larson, Richard 2004. “Sentence-final adverbs and ‘scope’,” in Wolf, M. and Moulton, K. (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 34. UMASS: GLSA, 23–43.Google Scholar

Lasnik, Howard. 1975. “On the semantics of negation,” in Hockney, D., Harper, W., and Freed, B. (eds.), Contemporary Research and Philosophical Logic and Linguistic Semantics, The University of Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science, Vol. 4. Dordrecht: Springer, 279–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nestor, Marina and Irene, Vogel. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Padilla, José A. 1990. On the Definition of Binding Domains in Spanish. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pesetsky, David and Torrego, Esther. 2004. “Tense, case and the nature of syntactic categories,” in Guéron, Jacqueline and Lacarme, Jacqueline (eds.), The Syntax of Time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 495–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Larson, Richard 2007. “The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features,” in Karimi, Simin, Samian, Vida, and Wilkins, Wendy (eds.), Phrasal and Clausal Architecture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 262–294.Google Scholar

Picallo, Carme. 1984. “Opaque domains,” unpublished Ph.D. thesis, CUNY.Google Scholar

Prieto, Pilar. 2006. “Phonological phrasing in Spanish,” in Colina, Sonia and Martinez Gil, Fernández (eds.), Optimality Theoretical Advantages in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 39–60.Google Scholar

Progovac, Ljiljana. 1994. Negative and Positive Polarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Quer, Josep. 1998. Mood at the Interface. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar

Quer, Josep 2005. “Subjunctives,” in Evaraert, Martin and van Riemsdijk, Hen (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell, 660–684.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. 1956. “Quantifiers and propositional attitudes,” The Journal of Philosophy 53(5): 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rivero, María Luisa and Geber, Dana. 2003. “Quirky subjects and person restrictions in Romance: Romanian and Spanish,” Cahiers Linguistiques D'Ottawa 31: 53–66.Google Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. “The fine structure of the left periphery,” in Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 281–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roussou, Anna. 2001. “Control and raising,” in Rivero, María-Luisa and Ralli, Angela (eds.), Comparative Syntax of the Balkan Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 74–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sawada, Miyuki and Larson, Richard. 2003. “Presupposition and root transformations in adjunct clauses,” in Wolf, M. and Moulton, K. (eds.), NELS 34: Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistics Society. UMASS: GLSA, 517–528.Google Scholar

Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1986. “On derived domains in sentence phonology,” Phonology Yearbook 3: 371–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Selkirk, Elisabeth 1995. “Sentence prosody: intonation, stress and phrasing,” in Goldsmith, John (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Cambridge: Blackwell, 550–569.Google Scholar

Selkirk, Elisabeth 2005. “Comments on intonational phrasing in English,” in Frota, Sónia, Vigário, Marina, and Freitas, M. João (eds.), Prosodies: With Special Reference to Iberian Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 11–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Siegel, Laura. 2009. “Mood selection in Romance and Balkan,” Lingua 119: 1859–1882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stroik, Thomas. 1999. “Adverbs as V-sisters,” Linguistic Inquiry 21: 654–661.Google Scholar

Torrego, Esther. 1984. “On inversion in Spanish and some of its effects,” Linguistic Inquiry 15: 103–130.Google Scholar

Torrego, Esther and Uriagereka, Juan. 1992. “Indicative dependents,” ms., University of Massachusetts and University of Maryland.Google Scholar

Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1999. “On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases,” Linguistic Inquiry 30: 219–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Uriagereka, Juan and Gallego, Angel. 2007. “Subjunctive dependents,” XVII Colloquium on Generative Grammar, Girona, June 13–15, 2007.Google Scholar

Uribe-Extebarria, María. 1994. “Interface licensing conditions on negative polarity items,” unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar

Wagner, Michael. 2005. “Prosody and recursion,” unpublished Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar

Zubizarreta, María Luisa. 1998. Prosody, Focus and Word Order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Ackema, P. & Neeleman, A.. 2004. Beyond Morphology: Interface Conditions on Word Formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alexiadou, A. & Anagnostopoulou, E.. 2001. ‘The Subject-in-Situ Generalization and the Role of Case in Driving Derivations.’ Linguistic Inquiry 32: 192–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alexiadou, A., Haegeman, L. & Stavrou, M.. 2007. The Noun Phrase in the Generative Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bazalgette, T. 2015. ‘Algorithmic Acquisition of Focus Parameters.’ PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar

Bejar, S. & Rezac, M.. 2009. ‘Cyclic Agree.’ Linguistic Inquiry 40: 35–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berwick, R. C. & Chomsky, N.. 2011. ‘The Biolinguistic Program: The Current State of its Evolution and Development.’ In The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty, ed. Sciullo, A. M. Di & Boeckx, C.. 19–41. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Biberauer, T. 2015. ‘The Limits of Syntactic Variation: An Emergentist Generative Perspective.’ Invited talk given at the Workshop on Language Variation and Change and Cultural Evolution (Centre for Linguistics History and Diversity, York University, 13 February 2015).Google Scholar

Biberauer, T. & Roberts, I.. 2010. ‘Subjects, Tense and Verb Movement.’ In Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, ed. Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. & Sheehan, M.. 263–302. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Biberauer, T. & Roberts, I.. 2015. ‘The Clausal Hierarchy, Features and Parameters.’ In Beyond Functional Sequence: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 10, ed. Shlonsky, Ur. 295–313. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biberauer, T. & Roberts, I.. 2017. ‘Parameter Setting.’ In The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax, ed. Ledgeway, A. & Roberts, I.. 134–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A. & Roberts, I. G.. 2014. ‘A Syntactic Universal and Its Consequences.’ Linguistic Inquiry 45(2): 169–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. & Sheehan, M.. 2010. Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. and Sheehan, M.. 2014. ‘Complexity and Comparative Syntax: The View from Modern Syntactic Theory.’ In Measuring Grammatical Complexity, ed. Newmeyer, F. J. & Preston, L. B.. 103–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Biberauer, T., Roberts, I. & Sheehan, M.. 2014. ‘No-choice Parameters and the Limits of Syntactic Variation.’ In Proceedings of WCCFL 31, ed. Santana-LaBarge, Robert E.. 46–55. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

Boeckx, C. & Gallego, A.. 2008. ‘Clitic-Climbing by Long-Distance Agree.’ Talk given at Meeting Clitics: Workshop on Explanatory Proposals of Clitics, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona.Google Scholar

Borer, H. 2005. In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. 2002. ‘On Multiple Wh-fronting.’ Linguistic Inquiry 33: 351–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brugè, L. 1994. ‘Alcune considerazioni sulla sintassi del dimostrativo in spagnolo.’ Ms., Universities of Padua and Venice.Google Scholar

Brugè, L. 1996. ‘Demonstrative Movement in Spanish: A Comparative Approach.’ University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 6: 1–53.Google Scholar

Brugè, L. 2000. Categorie funzionali del nome nelle lingue romanze. Milan: Cisalpino.Google Scholar

Brugè, L. 2002. ‘The Positions of Demonstratives in the Extended Nominal Projections.’ In Functional Structure in DP and IP, ed. Cinque, G.. 15–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brugè, L. & Giusti, G.. 1996. ‘On Demonstratives.’ Paper presented at the 19th GLOW Colloquium, Athens. GLOW Newsletter 36: 24–5.Google Scholar

Cardinaletti, A. 2008. ‘Clitic Clusters.’ Ms., University of Venice.Google Scholar

Cardinaletti, A. & Starke, M.. 1999. ‘The Typology of Structural Deficiency: A Case Study of the Three Classes of Pronouns.’ In Clitics in the Languages of Europe, ed. van Riemsdijk, H.. 145–235. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Cheng, L. 1991. ‘On the Typology of Wh-Questions.’ PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G. 1995. ‘Variability of Impersonal Subjects’. In Quantification in Natural Languages, ed. Bach, E., Jelinek, E., Kratzer, A. & Partee, B. H.. 107–44. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G. 1998. ‘Reference to Kinds across Languages.’ Natural Language Semantics 6: 339–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1975. Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 2001. ‘Derivation by Phase.’ In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, ed. Kenstowicz, Michael. 28–53. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 2005. ‘Three Factors in Language Design.’ Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, N. 2008. ‘On Phases.’ In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos & Zubizarreta, Maria-Luisa. 133–66. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Cinque, G. 2005. ‘Deriving Greenberg's Universal 20 and Its Exceptions.’ Linguistic Inquiry 36(3): 315–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corver, N. & van Koppen, M.. 2010. ‘(Dis)harmonic Variation, the Definite Article and NPE in the Dutch Dialects’. Paper presented at the Workshop on Disharmony in Nominals, Linguistics Association of Great Britain Annual Meeting, Leeds University, September 2010.Google Scholar

den Dikken, M. 2009. ‘On the Nature and Distribution of Successive Cyclicity.’ Talk given at the 40th Conference of the North Eastern Linguistic Society (NELS), MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar

Dryer, M. 2008. ‘The Order of Demonstrative, Numeral, Adjective and Noun: An Alternative to Cinque.’ Talk given at Theoretical Approaches to Disharmonic Word Orders, Newcastle University, May.Google Scholar

Emonds, J. E. 1978. ‘The Verbal Complex V’-V in French.’ Linguistic Inquiry 9: 151–75.Google Scholar

Fiengo, R. & Higginbotham, J.. 1981. ‘Opacity in NP.’ Linguistic Analysis 7: 347–73.Google Scholar

Fox, D. 2002. ‘Antecedent-Contained Deletion and the Copy Theory of Movement.’ Linguistic Inquiry 33: 63–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gianollo, C., Guardiano, C. & Longobardi, G.. 2008. ‘Three Fundamental Issues in Parametric Linguistics.’ In The Limits of Syntactic Variation, ed. Biberauer, T.. 109–42. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Giusti, G. 1993. La sintassi dei determinanti. Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar

Giusti, Giuliana. 1997. ‘The Categorial Status of Determiners.’ In The New Comparative Syntax, ed. Haegeman, L.. 95–124. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Giusti, Giuliana. 2001. ‘The Birth of a Functional Category: From Latin ille to the Romance Article and Personal Pronoun.’ In Current Studies in Italian Syntax: Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi, ed. Cinque, Guglielmo & Salvi, Giampaolo. 157–71. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar

Giusti, Giuliana. 2002. ‘The Functional Structure of Noun Phrases: A Bare Phrase Structure Approach.’ In Functional Structure in DP and IP, ed. Cinque, G.. 54–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grohmann, K. & Panagiotidis, P.. 2005. ‘An Anti-locality Approach to Greek Demonstratives.’ In Contributions to the 30th Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, ed. Brugè, L., Giusti, G., Munaro, N., Schweikert, W. & Turano, G.. 243–63. Venice: Cafoscarina.Google Scholar

Guardiano, C. 2010. ‘Demonstratives and the Structure of the DP: Crosslinguistic Remarks’. Paper presented at the Workshop on Disharmony in Nominals, Linguistics Association of Great Britain Annual Meeting, Leeds University, September 2010.Google Scholar

Höhn, G. 2017. ‘Non-Possessive Person in the Nominal Domain’. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar

Holmberg, A. 2010. ‘Null Subject Parameters.’ In Parametric Variation: The Null Subject Parameter, ed. Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. & Sheehan, M.. 88–124. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kayne, R. S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kayne, Richard S. 2000. Parameters and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kayne, Richard S. 2013. ‘Why There Are No Directionality Parameters.’ In Theoretical Approaches to Disharmonic Word Order, ed. Biberauer, T. and Sheehan, M.. 219–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Koopman, H. & Sportiche, D.. 1982. ‘Variables and the Bijection Principle.’ The Linguistic Review 2: 139–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lohndal, J.-T. & Uriagereka, J.. 2017. Third-Factor Explanations and Universal Grammar. In The Oxford Handbook of Universal Grammar, ed. Roberts, I.. 114–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Longobardi, G. 1994. ‘Reference and Proper Names: A Theory of N-Movement in Syntax and Logical Form.’ Linguistic Inquiry 25: 609–65.Google Scholar

Longobardi, G. 1996. The Syntax of N-Raising: A Minimalist Theory. Utrecht: OTS Working Papers.Google Scholar

Longobardi, G. 2008. ‘Reference to Individuals, Person, and the Variety of Mapping Parameters.’ In Essays on Nominal Determination: From Morphology to Discourse Management, ed. Müller, H. Høeg & Klinge, A.. 189–211. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Longobardi, G. 2010. Lecture series on DP-structure. University of Cambridge, November 2010.Google Scholar

Lyons, C. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Manzini, M.-R. 2012. Review of I. Roberts, Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation and Defective Goals. Language 88: 212–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCloskey, J. 1996. ‘On the Scope of Verb-Movement in Irish.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 47–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Newmeyer, F. J. 1998. Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Nunes, J. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Panagiotidis, P. 2000. ‘Demonstrative Determiners and Operators: The Case of Greek.’ Lingua 110: 717–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. ‘Verb Movement, Universal Grammar and the Structure of IP.’ Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.Google Scholar

Richards, M. 2008. ‘Defective Agree, Case Alternations, and the Prominence of Person.’ In Scales, ed. Richards, M. & Malchukov, A. L.. 137–61. Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. 2005. Principles and Parameters in a VSO Language: A Case Study in Welsh. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roberts, I. 2007. Diachronic Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. 2010a. Agreement and Head Movement: Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roberts, I. 2010b. ‘A Deletion Analysis of Null Subjects.’ In Parametric Variation: Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory, ed. Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. & Sheehan, M.. 58–87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. 2012a. ‘Macroparameters and Minimalism: A Programme for Comparative Research.’ In Parameter Theory and Linguistic Change, ed. Galves, C., Cyrino, S., Lopes, R., Sândalo, F. & Avelar, J.. 320–35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. 2012b. ‘Phases, Head-Movement and Second-Position Effects.’ In Phases: Developing the Framework, ed. Gallego, Angel. 385–440. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roberts, I. 2017. ‘The Final-Over-Final Condition in DP: Universal 20 and the Nature of Demonstratives.’ In The Final-over-Final Condition: A Syntactic Universal, ed. Sheehan, M., Biberauer, T., Roberts, I. & Holmberg, A.. 151–86. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Roberts, I. & Roussou, A.. 2003. Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rosen, N. 2003. ‘Demonstrative Position in Michif.’ Canadian Journal of Linguistics 48: 39–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ross, J. R. 1967. ‘Constraints on Variables in Syntax.’ PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Russell, B. 1905. ‘On Denoting.’ Mind 14: 479–93.Google Scholar

Russell, B. & Whitehead, A. N.. 1910–13. Principia Mathematica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Safir, K. 2014. ‘One True Anaphor.’ Linguistic Inquiry 45: 91–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shlonsky, U. 2004. ‘The Form of Semitic Noun Phrases.’ Lingua 114: 1465–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Starke, M. 2001. ‘Move Dissolves into Merge.’ PhD dissertation, University of Geneva.Google Scholar

Uriagereka, J. 1988. ‘On Government.’ PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar

Vincent, N. 1997. ‘The Emergence of the D-system in Romance.’ In Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, ed. van Kemenade, A. & Vincent, N.. 149–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Watanabe, A. 1992. Wh-in-Situ, Subjacency, and Chain Formation. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 2. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MITWPL.Google Scholar

Williams, E. 1981. ‘Argument Structure and Morphology.’ The Linguistic Review 1: 81–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Williams, E. 1994. Thematic Structure in Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar