Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:50:11.139Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2013

Elly van Gelderen
Elly van Gelderen
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Clause Structure , pp. 218 - 232
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abels, K. 2003. Successive Cyclicity, Anti-Locality, and Adposition Stranding. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Abney, S. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. Dissertation, MIT.
Abraham, W. 1995. Structural Properties of Information Packaging in German and in Universal Grammar. In Hajičová, E., Červenka, M., Leška, O. and Sgall, P. (eds.), Prague Linguistic Circle Papers, vol. I, 125–156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abraham, W. 1997a. Kausativierung und Dekausativierung: Zu Fragen der verbparadigmatischen Markierung in der Germania. In Birkmann, T. and Werner, O. (eds.), Vergleichende germanische Philologie und Skandinavistik: Festschrift für Otmar Werner, 13–28. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Abraham, W. 1997b. The Interdependence of Case, Aspect, and Referentiality in the History of German: The Case of the Genitive. In van Kemenade, A. and Vincent, N. (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change, 29–61. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Abraham, W. and de Meij, S.. 1986. Topic, Focus, and Configurationality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adger, D. 2007. Core Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Adger, D. & Ramchand, G.. 2001. Phases and Interpretability. In Megerdoomian, K. and Bar-el, L. A. (eds.), WCCFL 20 Proceedings, 101–104. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Akmajian, A., Steele, S., and Wasow, T.. 1979. The Category AUX in Universal Grammar?Linguistic Inquiry 10: 1–64.Google Scholar
Aoun, J. & Benmamoun, E.. 1998. Minimality, Reconstruction and PF-Movement?Linguistic Inquiry 29.4: 569–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aoun, J. & Li, A.. 1989. Scope and Constituency?Linguistic Inquiry 20: 141–172.Google Scholar
Authier, M. 1992. Iterated CPs and Embedded Topicalization?Linguistic Inquiry 23.2: 329–336.Google Scholar
Auwera, J. & Plungian, V.. 1998. Modality’s Semantic Map?Linguistic Typology 2: 79–124.Google Scholar
Babyonyshev, M., Ganger, J., Pesetsky, D., and Wexler, K.. 2001. The Maturation of Grammatical Principles: Evidence from Russian Unaccusatives?Linguistic Inquiry 32.1: 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badan, L. & del Gobbo, F.. 2011. On the Syntax of Topic and Focus in Chinese. In Benincà, P. and Munaro, N. (eds.), Mapping the Left Periphery, 63–90. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation. Chicago University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Baker, Mark 1997. Thematic Roles and Syntactic Structure. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar, 73–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark 2001. The Atoms of Language. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark 2008a. The Syntax of Agreement and Concord. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark 2008b. The Macroparameter in a Microparametric World. In Biberauer, Theresa (ed.), The Limits of Syntactic Variation, 351–374. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baltin, M. 2004. Remarks on the Relation between Language Typology and Universal Grammar?Studies in Language 28.3: 549–553.Google Scholar
Basse, G. 2008. Factive Complements as Defective Phases. WCCFL 27 Proceedings, 54–62. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Bech, G. 1955. Studien über das deutsche Verbum infinitum. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. 2001. Inversion as Focalization. In Hulk, A. and Pollock, J.-Y. (eds.), Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar, 60–90. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. 2004. Aspects of the Low IP Area. In Rizzi, L. (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, 16–51. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. 2008. Answering Strategies: New Information Subjects and the Nature of Clefts. In Structures and Strategies, 242–265. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. and Rizzi, L.. 1988. Psych-Verbs and Theta-Theory?Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 291–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benincà, P. 2001. The Position of Topic and Focus in the Left Periphery. In Cinque, G. and Renzi, L. (eds.), Current Studies in Italian Syntax, 39–64. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Benincà, P. and Munaro, N.. 2010. Introduction. In Benincà, P. & Munaro, N. (eds.), Mapping the Left Periphery, 3–15. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Benincà, P. & Poletto, C.. 2004. Topic, Focus and V2: Defining the CP Sublayers. In Rizzi, L. (ed.), The Structure of CP and IP, 52–75. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bergsland, K. 1994. Sydsamisk grammatik. Karasjok: Davvi Girji o.s.Google Scholar
Besten, H. den. 1983. On the Interaction of Root Transformations and Lexical Deletive Rules. In Abraham, W. (ed.), On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania, 47–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. & Richards, M.. 2006. True Optionality: When the Grammar doesn’t Mind. In Boeckx, C. (ed.), Minimalist Essays, 35–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, D. 1990. Language and Species. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Biskup, P. 2011. Adverbials and the Phase Model. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C. 2008. Bare Syntax. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borer, H. 1984. Parametric Syntax: Case Studies in Semitic and Romance Languages. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, H. 1994. The Projection of Arguments. In Benedicto, E. and Runner, J. (eds.),University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics17, 19–47. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
Borer, H. 2005a. In Name Only. Structuring Sense, vol. I. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, H. 2005b. The Normal Course of Events. Structuring Sense, vol. II. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2002. A-Movement and the EPP?Syntax 5: 167–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, M. 1974. Learning the Structure of Causative Verbs: A Study in the Relationship of Cognitive, Semantic, and Syntactic Development?Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 8: 142–178.Google Scholar
Bowers, J. 2010. Arguments as Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. 1972. Theory of Complementation in English Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Bril, I. (ed.). 2010. Clause Linking and Clause Hierarchy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef
Butler, J. 2003. A Minimalist Treatment of Modality?Lingua 113: 967–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, J. 2004. On Having Arguments and Agreeing: Semantic EPP?York Papers in Linguistics 2.1: 1–27.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. and Fleischman, S. (eds.). 1995. Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef
Carnie, A. 2007. Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Carstens, V. 2012. Delayed valuation: A Reanalysis of “upwards” Complementizer Agreement and the Mechanics of case. Unpublished manuscript.
Chocano, Gema 2007. Narrow Syntax and Phonological Form: Scrambling in the Germanic Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1955. The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. Manuscript. Published in 1975. New York: Plenum Press.
Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on Nominalization. In Jacobs, R. and Rosenbaum, P. (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184–221. Waltham: Ginn.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1971. Deep Structure, Surface Structure and Semantic Interpretation. In Steinberg, D. and Jakobovits, L. (eds.), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Linguistics, Philosophy and Psychology, 183–216. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1973. Conditions on Transformations. In Anderson, S. and Kiparsky, P. (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 232–285. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1975. Reflections on Language. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1997a. Essays on Form and Interpretation. New York: Elsevier North-Holland.Google Scholar
Torrego, N. 1977b. On Wh-Movement. In Culicover, P., Wasow, T., and Akmajian, A. (eds.), Formal Syntax, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986a. Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger.Google ScholarPubMed
Chomsky, N. 1986b. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1989. Some Notes on Economy of Derivation and Representation [reprinted as chapter 2 of Chomsky 1995, and references to that].
Chomsky, N. 1992. A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. MIT Occasional Working Papers in Linguistics.
Chomsky, N. 1993. Language and Thought. Wakefield: Moyer Bell.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., and Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by Step: Essays in Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [originally published 1998]Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by Phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2002. On Nature and Language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2004. Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. In Belletti, A. (ed.), Structures and Beyond, 104–131. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2005. Three Factors in Language Design?Linguistic Inquiry 36.1: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2007. Approaching UG from Below. In Sauerland, U. and Gärtner, H.-M. (eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language?, 1–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2008a. The Biolinguistic Program: Where does it Stand Today? ms.
Chomsky, N. 2008b. On Phases. In Freidin, R., Otero, C. P., and Zubizarreta, M. L. (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 134–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2011. Problems of Projection. ms.
Chung, S. and McCloskey, J.. 1983. On the Interpretation of Certain Island Facts in GPSG?Linguistic Inquiry 14: 704–713.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 1990. Types of A’-Dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. and Rizzi, L.. 2008. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, ed. Moscati, V., CISCL Working Papers on Language and Cognition 2. 43–59. Google Scholar
Collins, C. 2005. A Smuggling Approach to the Passive in English?Syntax 8: 81–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 2006. Transitivity Pairs, Markedness, and Diachronic Stability?Linguistics 44.2: 303–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowley, & Bowern, C.. 2010. An Introduction to Historical Linguistics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cysouw, M. 2003. The Paradigmatic Structure of Person Marking. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cysouw, M. 2008. Generalizing Scales. In Richards, M. & Malchukov, A. (eds.), Scales, Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 86: 379–396.Google Scholar
Daly, J. 1973. A Generative Syntax of Peñoles Mixtec. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. 1980. Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, M. & Gardner, D.. 2007. Pointing out Frequent Phrasal Verbs: A Corpus-Based Analysis?TESOL Quarterly 41: 339–359.Google Scholar
de Cat, C. 2007. French Dislocation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Diesing, M. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Diesing, M. 1997. Yiddish VP Structure and the Typology of Object Movement?Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15.2: 369–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillon, M. & ó Cróinín, D.. 1961. Irish. London: The English Universities Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. & Aikhenvald, A.. 2006. Serial Verb Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Donohue, M. 1999. A Grammar of Tukang Besi. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drach, E. 1937. Grundgedanken der deutschen Satzlehre. Frankfurt: Diesterweg.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. 1992. The Greenbergian Word Order Correlations?Language 68: 81–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. 2011a. Expression of Pronominal Subjects. In Dryer, M. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, feature 101A. Accessed December 27, 2011.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. 2011b. Polar Questions. In Dryer, M. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, feature 116A. Accessed December 27, 2011.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. 1976. A Transformational Approach to English Syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Enç, M. 1987. Anchoring Conditions for Tense?Linguistic Inquiry 18: 633–657.Google Scholar
Ernst, T. (2002). The Syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. 1968. The Case for Case. In Bach, E. and Harms, R. T. (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Folli, R. & Harley, H.. 2007. Causation, Obligation and Argument Structure: On the Nature of Little v?Linguistic Inquiry 38.2: 97–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fong, S. 2005. Computation with Probes and Goals. In DiSciullo, A. M. (ed.), UG and External Systems, 311–333. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forchheimer, P. 1953. The Category of Person in Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, M. 2007. Subjects, Topics and the Interpretation of Referential Pro?Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25.4: 691–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, M. & Hinterhölzl, R.. 2007. Types of Topics in German and Italian. In Schwabe, K. & Winkler, S. (eds.), On Information Structure, Meaning and Form, 87–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, W. 2003. On Some Dislocation Constructions in German and English.
Fukui, N. & Speas, M.. 1986. Specifiers and Projection?MITWPL 8: 128–172.Google Scholar
Gallego, A. 2010. Phase Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geach, P. 1957. Mental Acts. London: Routledge, Kegan, and Paul.Google Scholar
Gelderen, E.. 1993. The Rise of Functional Categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelderen, E.. 1997a. Verbal Agreement. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Gelderen, E.. 1997b. Structures of Tense and Aspect?Linguistic Analysis 27.3–4: 138–165.Google Scholar
Gelderen, E.. 2000. A History of English Reflexive Pronouns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelderen, E.. 2004. Grammaticalization as Economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelderen, E.. 2010. A Grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gelderen, E.. 2011. The Linguistic Cycle. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, A. 1998. Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)Veridical Dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. 1971. Historical Syntax and Synchronic Morphology?Chicago Linguistic Society Proceedings 7: 394–415.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1978. Negation in Language. In Cole, P. (ed.), Syntax & Semantics 9: 69–112. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1980. The Binding Hierarchy and the Typology of Complements?Studies in Language 4: 333–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. 1983. Topic Continuity in Discourse: An Introduction. In Givón, T. (ed.), Topic continuity in Discourse, 1–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. 1990. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 2006. Multiple Routes to Clause Union. ms.
Givón, T. 2009. The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J. 1963. Universals of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gruber, J. 1965. Studies in Lexical Relations. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Guasti, M. 2002. Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Guimarães, M. 2000. In Defense of Vacuous Projections in Bare Phrase Structure?University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 9: 90–115.Google Scholar
Hacquard, V. 2009. On the Interaction of Aspect and Modal Auxiliaries?Linguistics and Philosophy 32: 279–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacquard, V. 2010. On the Event-Relativity of Modal Auxiliaries?Natural Language Semantics 18.1: 79–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L. 1995. The Syntax of Negation. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L. 2006. Argument Fronting in English, Romance CLLD, and the Left Periphery. In Zanuttini, R., Campos, H., Herburger, E., and Portner, P. H. (eds.), Crosslinguistic Research in Syntax and Semantics, 27–52. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Haiden, M. 2005. Theta Theory. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider, H. 2000. Adverb Placement – Convergence of Structure and Licensing?Theoretical Linguistics 26: 95–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J. 2010. Cambodian Khmer. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hale, K. 1992. Basic Word Order in Two “Free Word Order” Languages. In Payne, D. (ed.), Pragmatics of Word Order Flexibility, 63–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J.. 1993. On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations. In Hale, K. and Keyser, J. (eds.), The View from Building 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, K., and Keyser, S. J.. 2002. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, H. 1995. Subjects, Events, and Licensing. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Harley, H. 2002. Possession and the Double Object Construction?Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2: 31–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, H. & Ritter, E.. 2002. Person and Number in Pronouns: A Feature-Geometric Analysis?Language 78.3: 482–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 1993. More on the Typology of the Inchoative/Causative Verb Alternations. In Comrie, B. & Polinsky, M. (eds.), Causatives and Transitivity, 87–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2010. Ditransitive Constructions: The Verb “Give”. In Dryer, M. S. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, feature 105A. Accessed December 28, 2011.Google Scholar
Haumann, D. 2007. Adverb Licensing and Clause Structure in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazout, I. 2004. The Syntax of Existential Constructions?Linguistic Inquiry 35: 393–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegarty, M. 2005. A Feature-Based Syntax of Functional Categories: The Structure, Acquisition, and Specific Impairment. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. & Kuteva, T.. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, A. 1995. Belfast English and Standard English. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, E. 1993. Dialectal Variation inside CP as Parametric Variation?Linguistische Berichte 5: 161–179.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. 1986. Word Order and the Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian Languages and English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Stockholm.
Hooper, J. and Thompson, S.. 1973. On the Applicability of Root Transformations?Linguistic Inquiry 4.4: 465–497.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. and Thompson, S.. 1980. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse?Language 56. 2: 251–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. 1999. Movement and Control?Linguistic Inquiry 30.1: 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Iggesen, O. A. 2011. Number of Cases. In Dryer, M. and Haspelmath, M., (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, feature 49A. Accessed December 27, 2011.Google Scholar
Ingram, D. 1978. Typology and Universals of Personal Pronouns. In Greenberg, J. (ed.), Universals of Human Language, vol. III, 213–247. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Isac, D. 2012. Decomposing Force. In DiSciullo, A. M. (ed.), Towards a Biolinguistic Understanding of Grammar, 87–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1977. X-bar-Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of Language. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jayaseelan, K. A. 2001. IP-internal Topic and Focus Positions?Studia Linguistica 55: 39–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeong, Y. 2007. Applicatives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. [1922] 1959. Language. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Jones, M. 1992. Infinitives with Specified Subjects in Sardinian. In Laeufer, C. & Morgan, T. A. (eds.), Theoretical Analyses in Romance Linguistics, 295–310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kari, J. 1990. Ahtna Athabaskan Dictionary. Anchorage: Alaska Native Language Center.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 1989. Facets of Romance Past Participle Agreement. In Benincà, P. (ed.), Dialect Variation and the Theory of Grammar, 85–103. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 1993. Toward a Modular Theory of Auxiliary Selection?Studia Linguistica 47: 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R 2005. Some Notes on Comparative Syntax, with Special Reference to English and French. In Cinque, G. and Kayne, R. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax, 3–69. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R 2010. Why are there No Directionality Parameters? ms.
Kayne, R 2011. Some Thoughts on Syntax in 2011. Talk, Potsdam.
Keenan, E. 1976. Toward a Universal Definition of “subject”. In Li, C. (ed.), Subject and Topic, 303–334. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kimball, J. & Aissen, J.. 1971. I Think, You Think, He Think?Linguistic Inquiry 2: 241–246.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1998. Partitive Case and Aspect. In Butt, M. and Geuder, W. (eds.), The Projection of Arguments, 265–307. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. & Kiparsky, C.. 1970. Fact. In Bierwisch, M. and Heidolph, K. E. (eds.), Progress in Linguistics, 143–173. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kiss, K. 1996. Two Subject Positions in English?The Linguistic Review 13: 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiss, K. 1998. Identificational Focus versus Information Focus?Language 74: 245–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiss, K. 2007. Topic and Focus?Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 6: 69–81. Google Scholar
Koopman, H. & Sportiche, D.. 1991. The Position of Subjects?Lingua 85.2/3: 211–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koptjevska-Tamm, M. 1990. Finiteness. In Brown, K. & Miller, J. (eds.), Concise Encyclopedia of Grammatical Categories, 146–149. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Koster, J. 1978. Locality Principles in Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Koster, J. 1986. Domains and Dynasties. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Koster, J. 1993. Towards a New Theory of Anaphoric Binding. ms, Groningen University.
Koster, J. 2000. Extraposition as parallel construal.
Koster, J. 2004. Syntaxis: Dynamisch of Cartografisch?TABU 33: 173–194.Google Scholar
Koster, J. 2007. Structure Preservingness, Internal Merge, and the Strict Locality of Triads. In Karimi, S., Samiian, V., and Wilkins, W. K. (eds.), Phrasal and Clausal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation, 188–205. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, A. 1996. Severing the External Argument from its Verb. In Rooryck, J. and Zaring, L. (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuczaj, S. 1976. -Ing, -s, -ed: A study of the Acquisition of Certain Verb Inflections. Dissertation, University of Minnesota.
Kulikov, L. n.d.
Kural, M. 1993. V-to(I-to)C in Turkish?UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 11.Google Scholar
Kush, D., Omaki, A., and Hornstein, N. (in press). Microvariation in Islands.
Laenzlinger, C. 2004. A Feature-Based Theory of Adverb Syntax. In Austin, J. R., Engelberg, S., and Rauh, G. (eds.), Adverbials: The Interplay between Meaning, Context, and Syntactic Structure, 205–252. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laka, I. 1994. On the Syntax of Negation. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics Series. New York and London: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 2010. Constraints on Subject-Focus Mapping in French and English. In Breul, C. and Göbbel, E. (eds.), Comparative and Contrastive Studies of Information Structure, 77–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, B. 1994. Where’s What and What’s Where: The Language of Objects in Space?Lingua 92: 259–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 2012. The Locative Syntax of Experiences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Larson, R. 1988. On the Double Object Construction?Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–391.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. 1999. Minimalist Analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. 2001. A Note on the EPP?Linguistic Inquiry 32.2: 356–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, H. and Saito, M.. 1992. Move: Conditions on its Application and Output. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Leiss, E. 2000. Artikel und Aspekt. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Letuchiy, A. 2010. Lability and spontaneity. In Brandt, P. and García, M. G. (eds.), Transitivity, 237–255. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, B. and Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1995. Unaccusativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Li, C. and Thompson, S.. 1974. An Explanation of Word Order Change: SVO > SOV?Foundations of Language 12: 201–214.Google Scholar
Li, C., and Thompson, S.. 1976. Subject and Topic: A New Typology of Language. In Li, C. N. (ed.), Subject and Topic, 458–489. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Li, Charles, and Thompson, S. 1981. Mandarin Chinese. Berkeley: California University Press.Google Scholar
Lohndal, T. 2012. Without Specifiers: Phrase Structure and Events. Doctoral dissertation, UMD.
Lutz, Uli, Müller, G., and von Stechow, A.. 2000. Wh-scope Marking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics I and II. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Macaulay, M. 1996. A Grammar of Chalcatongo Mixtec. Berkeley: California University Press.Google Scholar
Malchukov, A., Haspelmath, M., & Comrie, B.. 2010. Studies in Ditransitive Constructions: A Comparative Handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Marelj, M. 2002. Rules that Govern the Co-occurrences of Theta-Clusters in the Theta System?Theoretical Linguistics 28.3: 357–373.Google Scholar
Marelj, M. 2004. Middles and Argument Structure across Languages? Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht.
Markman, E. 1994. Constraints on Word Meaning in Early Acquisition?Lingua 92: 199–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, R. 1985. Logical Form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. 1991. Verb Fronting, Verb Second and the Left Edge of IP in Irish. Talk, Stuttgart workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax.
McCloskey, J. 2006. Questions and Questioning in a Local English. In Zanuttini, R., Campos, H., Herburger, E., and Portner, P. H. (eds.), Crosslinguistic Research in Syntax and Semantics, 87–126. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
McGinnis, M. 2001. Variation in the Phase Structure of Applicatives?Linguistic Variation Yearbook 1: 105–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGinnis, M. 2004. Lethal Ambiguity?Linguistic Inquiry 35.1: 47–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medeiros, D. 2011. Economy of Command. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.
Mithun, M. 2000. The Reordering of Morphemes. In Gildea, S. (ed.), Reconstructing Grammar, 231–255. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, M. 2008. Borrowed Rhetorical Constructions as Starting Points for Grammaticalization. In Bergs, A. and Diewald, G. (eds), Constructions and Language Change, 195–230. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mohammad, M. 1989. The Sentential Structure of Arabic. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.
Moro, A. 1997. The Raising of Predicates. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muysken, P. 2008. Functional Categories. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F. 2005. Possible and Probable Languages: A Generative Perspective on Linguistic Typology. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, J., Peterson, D. & Barnes, J.. 2004. Transitivizing and Detransitivising Languages?Linguistic Typology 8.2: 149–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noonan, M. 1985. Complementation. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. II, 42–140. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nordström, J. 2010. Modality and Subordinators. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, J. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Oehrle, R. 1976. The Grammatical Status of the English Dative Alternation. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Olsway, C. 2004. The Hungarian Verbal Complex: An Alternative Approach. In Kiss, K. É. & van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), Verb Clusters: A Study of Hungarian, German and Dutch, 290–333. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ouhalla, J. 1990. Sentential Negation, Relativized Minimality and the Aspectual Status of Auxiliaries?The Linguistic Review 7: 183–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, F. R. 2001. Mood and Modality. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, T. 1990. Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Payne, T. 1997. Describing Morphosyntax: A Guide for Field Linguists. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, A. T. 1995. Resumptives in the Acquisition of Relative Clauses?Language Acquisition 4: 105–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, D. 1978. Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis?Proceedings from the 4th Regional Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 157–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, D. 1995. Zero Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. & Torrego, E.. 2001. T-to-C Movement: Causes and Consequences. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 355–426. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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, 495–538. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. & Torrego, E.. 2007. The Syntax of Valuation and the Interpretability of Features. In Karimi, S., Samiian, V., and Wilkins, W. K. (eds.), Phrasal and Clausal Architecture, 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pietroski, P. 2005. Events and Semantic Architecture. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Platzack, C. 1983. Germanic Word Order and the COMP/INFL Parameter. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 2.
Platzack, C. & Rosengren, I.. 1998. On the Subject of Imperatives: A Minimalist Account of the Imperative Clause?The Journal of Comparative Linguistics 1: 177–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poletto, C.The Higher Functional Field. Oxford University Press.
Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP?Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.Google Scholar
Postal, P. 2010. Edge-Based Clausal Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potsdam, E. 1998. Syntactic Issues in the English Imperative. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
Prince, E. 1981. Toward a Taxonomy of Given-New Information. In Cole, P., (ed.) Radical Pragmatics, 223–56. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L. 2008. Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. 2000. Children in Search of Perfection: Towards a Minimalist Model of Acquisition. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 34. (
Radford, A. 2009. Analysing English Sentences. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, G. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, M. and Levin, B.. 1998. Building Verb Meanings. In Butt, M. and Geuder, W. (eds.), The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors, 97–134. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. 2002. The Theta System: An Overview?Theoretical Linguistics 28:3: 229–290.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. 2006. Interface Strategies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rice, K. 2000. Monadic Verbs and Argument Structure in Ahtna, Slave and Navajo. In Fernald, T. & Platero, P. (eds.), The Athabaskan Languages, 167–199. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Richards, M. 2007. Object Shift, Phases, and Transitive Expletive Constructions in Germanic. In Pica, P., Rooryck, J., and van Craenenbroeck, J. (eds.), Linguistic Variation Yearbook 6, 139–159. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
Richards, M. 2008. Two Kinds of Variation in a Minimalist System. Varieties of Competition. In Heck, F., Müller, G. & Trommer, Jochen (eds.), Linguistische Arbeits Berichte 87, 133–162. Google Scholar
Richards, M. & Biberauer, T.. 2005. Explaining “Expl”. In den Dikken, M. & Tortora, C. M. (eds.), The Function of Function Words and Functional Categories, 115–153. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, E. 1995. On the Syntactic Category of Pronouns and Agreement?Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 405–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1982. Issues in Italian Linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1997. The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2001. On the Position “Int(errogative)” in the Left Periphery of the Clause. In Cinque, G., Renzi, L., and Salvi, G. (eds.), Current Studies in Italian Syntax, 287–296. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2004. Locality and Left Periphery. In Belletti, A. (ed.), Structures and Beyond, 223–251. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2010. Agreement and Head Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. & Holmberg, A. (eds.). 2010. Null Subjects: The Structure of Parametric Variation. Cambridge University Press.
Rochette, A. 1988. Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Romance Sentential Complementation. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Rosen, C. 1984. The Interface between Semantic Roles and Initial Grammatical Relations. In Perlmutter, D. and Rosen, C. (eds.), Studies in Relational Grammar 2, 38–77. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. 1976. The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rosengren, I. 2002. EPP: A Syntactic Device in the Service of Semantics?Studia Linguistica 56.2: 145–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Roussou, A. 2000. On the Left-Periphery: Modal Particles and Complementisers?Journal of Greek Linguistics 1: 65–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, J. 2012. The Genesis of Argument Structure. Saarbrucken: Lambert Publishing.Google Scholar
Sadock, J. and Zwicky, A.. 1985. Sentence Types. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. I, Clause Structure, 155–196. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schachter, P. 1976. The Subject in Philippine Languages: Topic, Actor, Actor-Topic, or None of the Above. In Li, C., Subject and Topic, 491–518. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schein, B. 1993. Plurals and Events. Cambridge, MA: Academic MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schweikert, W. 2005. The Order of Prepositional Phrases in the Structure of the Clause. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, M. & Pardeshi, P.. 2001. The Causative Continuum.
Shlonsky, U. 2010. The Cartographic Enterprise in Syntax?Language and Linguistics Compass 4/6: 417–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shu, C.-H. 2011. Sentence Adverbs in the Kingdom of Agree. Doctoral dissertation, Stony Brook.
Siewierska, A. 2011. Verbal Person Marking. In Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M., Gil, D. & Comrie, B. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, chapter 102. Accessed December 28, 2011.Google Scholar
Siewierska, A. & Bakker, D.. 2009. Case and Alternative Strategies. In Malchukov, A. and Spencer, A. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Case, 290–303. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. 2011. Conditions on Argument Drop?Linguistic Inquiry 42.2: 267–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobodchikoff, C. 2010. Alarm Calls in Birds and Mammals. In Breed, M. and Moore, J. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior, vol. I, 40–43. Oxford: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solà, J. 1996. Morphology and Word Order in Germanic Languages. In Abraham, W., Epstein, S. D., Thráinsson, Höskuldur, and Zwart, C. J.-W. (eds.), Minimal Ideas, 217–251. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. 2000. Gradients in Auxiliary Selection with Intransitive Verbs?Language 76.4: 859–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sportiche, D. 1988. A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and its Corollaries for Constituent Structure?Linguistic Inquiry 19.2: 425–451.Google Scholar
Stewart, O. 2001. The Serial Verb Construction Parameter. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Stowell, T. 1981. Origins of Phrase Structure. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Stroik, T. 2009. Locality in Minimalist Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swartz, S. 1988. Pragmatic Structure and Word Order in Warlpiri?Papers in Australian linguistics 17: 151–166. PL, A-71.Google Scholar
Tenny, C. L. 1994. Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tenny, C. L. 2000. Core Events and Adverbial Modification. In Tenny, C. and Pustejovsky, J. (eds.), Events as Grammatical Objects, 285–334. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. 1992. First Verbs. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Topping, D. 1973. Chamorro Reference Grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Travis, L. 1984. Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Trudgill, P. 1974. The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J. 2011. Spell-Out and the Minimalist Program. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Z. 1967. Verbs and Times?Philosophical Review 66: 143–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vergnaud, J.-R. 2008. Letter to Noam Chomsky and Howard Lasnik. In Freidin, R., Otero, C. P., and Zubizarreta, M. L. (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, 3–16. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Verkuyl, H. 1972. On the Compositional Nature of Aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, F. 1963–1973. An Historical Syntax of the English Grammar, Vols I–IIIb. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Watkins, L. 1990. Noun Phrase versus Zero in Kiowa Discourse?International Journal of American Linguistics 56.3: 410–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watters, J. 2000. Syntax. In Heine, B. & Nurse, D. (eds.), African Languages, 194–230. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, E. 1981. Argument Structure and Morphology?The Linguistic Review 1: 81–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, E. 1994. Thematic Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Willie, M. 1991. Navajo Pronouns and Obviation. Dissertation, University of Arizona.
Willis, D. 2007. Specifier-to-Head Reanalyses in the Complementizer Domain: Evidence from Welsh?Transactions of the Philological Society 105.3: 432–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurff, W.. 2007. Imperative Clauses in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yap, F. H., Grunow–Hårsta, K. and Wrona, J. (eds.). 2011. Nominalization in Asian Languages: Diachronic and Typological Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef
Zagona, K. 2007. Some Effects of Aspect on Tense Construal?Lingua 117: 464–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanuttini, R. 1997. Negation and Clausal Structure: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, R. and Portner, P.. 2003. Exclamative Clauses: At the Syntax–Semantics Interface?Language 79.1: 39–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zepeda, O. [1983] 1994. A Papago Grammar. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. & Pullum, G.. 1983. Cliticization vs. Inflection?Language 59.3: 502–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Elly van Gelderen, Arizona State University
  • Book: Clause Structure
  • Online publication: 05 June 2013
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084628.010
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Elly van Gelderen, Arizona State University
  • Book: Clause Structure
  • Online publication: 05 June 2013
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084628.010
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Elly van Gelderen, Arizona State University
  • Book: Clause Structure
  • Online publication: 05 June 2013
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084628.010
Available formats
×