Book contents
- The Syntax of Relative Clauses
- Cambridge Studies in Linguistics
- The Syntax of Relative Clauses
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- 1 Preliminaries
- 2 Deriving the Cross-Linguistically Attested Types of Restrictive and Maximalizing Relative Clauses from a Double-Headed Structure
- 3 Deriving the Other Types of Relative Clauses from a Double-Headed Structure
- 4 ‘Strategies’ for the Realization of the Internal Head
- 5 Some Residual Questions
- Conclusion
- Appendix: Possible Evidence for the Existence of Non-‘raising’ Derivations
- References
- Author Index
- Language Index
- Subject Index
- References
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 September 2020
Book contents
- The Syntax of Relative Clauses
- Cambridge Studies in Linguistics
- The Syntax of Relative Clauses
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- 1 Preliminaries
- 2 Deriving the Cross-Linguistically Attested Types of Restrictive and Maximalizing Relative Clauses from a Double-Headed Structure
- 3 Deriving the Other Types of Relative Clauses from a Double-Headed Structure
- 4 ‘Strategies’ for the Realization of the Internal Head
- 5 Some Residual Questions
- Conclusion
- Appendix: Possible Evidence for the Existence of Non-‘raising’ Derivations
- References
- Author Index
- Language Index
- Subject Index
- References
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.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Syntax of Relative ClausesA Unified Analysis, pp. 314 - 379Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Abebe, A. 1990. Relative Clauses in Chaha. A GB Approach. MA thesis. Addis Ababa University. http://etd.aau.edu.et/handle/123456789/6332Google Scholar
Abeillé, A. 2017. Agreement and interpretation of binominals in French. Paper presented at the CSSP 2017. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/cssp2017/abstracts/An-Abeille.pdfGoogle Scholar
Abeillé, A., Godard, D., Miller, P. & Sag, I. 1998. French bounded dependencies. In Dini, L. & Balari, S., eds., Romance in HPSG. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 1–54.Google Scholar
Abels, K. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. PhD diss. University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Abels, K. 2016. The fundamental left-right asymmetry in the Germanic verb cluster. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 19: 179–220.Google Scholar
Aboh, E. O. 2005. Deriving relative and factive clauses. In Brugè, L., Giusti, G., Munaro, N., Schweikert, W., Turano, G., eds., Contributions to the 30th Incontro di Grammatica Generativa. Venice: Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina. 265–85. http://hdl.handle.net/11707/757Google Scholar
Ackerman, F. & Nikolaeva, I. 2013. Descriptive Typology and Linguistic Theory: A study in the morphosyntax of relative clauses. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Adger, D. 2011. Bare resumptives. In Rouveret, A., ed., Resumptive Pronouns at the Interfaces. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 343–65.Google Scholar
Adger, D., Drummond, A., Hall, D. & van Urk, C. 2017. Is there Condition C Reconstruction? In Lamont, A. & Tetzloff, K., eds., Proceedings of NELS 47. Vol. 1. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 21–30. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003674Google Scholar
Adger, D., Harbour, D. & Watkins, L. 2009. Mirrors and Microparameters: Phrase structure beyond free word order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adger, D. & Ramchand, G. 2005. Merge vs move: Wh-dependencies revisited. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 161–93.Google Scholar
Åfarli, T. 1994. A promotion analysis of restrictive relative clauses. The Linguistic Review 11: 81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aghaei, B. 2003. Case attraction: Evidence for raising analysis for relative clauses in Farsi. Paper presented at SALA 23.Google Scholar
Aghaei, B. 2006. The syntax of Ke-clause and clausal extraposition in Modern Persian. PhD diss. University of Texas at Austin. https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/2655Google Scholar
Aissen, J. 1972. Where do relative clauses come from? In Kimball, J. P., ed., Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 1. New York: Seminar Press. 187–98.Google Scholar
Ajíbóyè, Ọ. 2001. The internal structure of Yorùbá DP. MS. University of British Columbia. Presented at ACAL 32, UC Berkeley, 25 March.Google Scholar
Akiyama, T. 2014. On restrictions on the use of non-restrictive infinitival relative clauses in English. In Gawne, L. & Vaughan, J., eds., Selected Papers from the 44th Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, 2013. University of Melbourne. 335–54. http://hdl.handle.net/11343/40971Google Scholar
Akmajian, A. & Lehrer, A. 1976. NP-like quantifiers and the problem of determining the head of an NP. Linguistic Analysis 2: 395–413.Google Scholar
Alber, B. 2008. Tyrolean A-bar movement: Doubling and resumptive pronoun structures. In Barbiers, S., Koeneman, O., Lekakou, M. & van der Ham, M., eds., Microvariation in Syntactic Doubling. Syntax and Semantics Vol. 36. Bingley: Emerald. 141–70.Google Scholar
Alcázar, E. A. 2007. A minimalist analysis of participial constructions: Towards a phase account of non-finite structures. PhD diss. University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Aldridge, E. 2004. Internally headed relative clauses in Austronesian languages. Language and Linguistics 5(1): 99–129. https://bit.ly/2QKqY0FGoogle Scholar
Aldridge, E. 2017. Internally and externally headed relative clauses in Tagalog. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1)41: 1–33. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.175Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Law, P., Meinunger, A. & Wilder, C. 2000. Introduction. In The Syntax of Relative Clauses. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1–51.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. & Varlokosta, S. 1996. The syntactic and semantic properties of free relatives in modern Greek. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 5: 1–31.Google Scholar
Alexopoulou, T. 2006. Resumption in relative clauses. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24: 57–111.Google Scholar
Allen, C. L. 1977. Topics in diachronic English syntax. PhD diss. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. https://bit.ly/2rsBvCRGoogle Scholar
Allwood, J. S. 1976. The complex np constraint as a non-universal rule and some semantic factors influencing the acceptability of Swedish sentences which violate the cnpc. In Stillings, J., ed., University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 2: 1–20.Google Scholar
Allwood, J. S. 1982. The complex noun phrase constraint in Swedish. In Engdahl, E. and Ejerhed, E., eds., Readings on Unbounded Dependencies in Scandinavian Languages. Umeå: University of Umeå. 15–32.Google Scholar
Almeida, D. A. de A. & Yoshida, M. 2007. A problem for the preposition stranding generalization. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 349–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alves, M. J. 2001. Noun phrase structure in Mon-Khmer languages. Handout for a presentation made at the Academia Sinica in Taiwan in April. https://bit.ly/2OiDi6JGoogle Scholar
Ambadiang, T. 2017. Relative clauses and relativization processes in Nugunu. In Atindogbé, G. G. & Grollemund, R., eds., Relative Clauses in Cameroonian Languages: Structure, function and semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 67–87.Google Scholar
Amha, A. 2001. The Maale Language. Leiden: CNWS Publications. http://hdl.handle.net/1887/36408Google Scholar
Ananda, L. M. G. 2008. The Cleft Construction in Sinhala. MPhil diss. Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.Google Scholar
Teferra, Anbessa. 2012. A Grammar of Sidaama: Phonology, morphology, and syntax. Saarbrücken: LAP Lambert.Google Scholar
Andersen, T. 1998. Verb-coding in Madi relative clauses. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 51: 295–326.Google Scholar
Anderson, C. 2005. Two types of Nepali correlatives. In Yadava, Y., Bhattarai, G., Lohani, R. R., Prasain, B. & Parajuli, K., eds., Contemporary Issues in Nepalese Linguistics. Kathmandu: Linguistic Society of Nepal. 1–12.Google Scholar
Andersson, L.-G. 1974. Topicalization and relative clause formation. Gothenburg Papers in Theoretical Linguistics 25.Google Scholar
Andersson, L.-G. 1982. What is Swedish an exception to? Extractions and island constraints. In Engdahl, E. & Ejerhed, E., eds., Readings on Unbounded Dependencies in Scandinavian Languages. Umeå: University of Umeå. 33–45.Google Scholar
Andersson, S.-G. & Kvam, S. 1984. Satzverschränkung im heutigen Deutsch. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Andrews, A. D. III. 1975. Studies in the Syntax of Relative and Comparative Clauses. PhD diss. MIT.Google Scholar
Andrews, A. D. III. 2007. Relative clauses. In Shopen, T., ed., Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Volume II: Complex Constructions. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 206–36.Google Scholar
Annamalai, E. & Steever, S. B. 1998. Modern Tamil. In Steever, S. B., ed., The Dravidian Languages. London: Routledge. 100–28.Google Scholar
Anonby, E. J. 2011. A Grammar of Mambay: An Adamawa language of Chad and Cameroon. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.Google Scholar
Aoun, J. & Choueiri, L. 1997. Resumption and Last Resort. MS. University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Aoun, J., Choueiri, L. & Hornstein, N. 2001. Resumption, movement and derivational economy. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 371–403.Google Scholar
Aoun, J. & Li, Y.-H. A. 2003. Essays on the Representational and Derivational Nature of Grammar. The Diversity of Wh-Constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Arad, T. 2014. The nature of resumptive pronouns. Evidence from parasitic gaps. MA thesis, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
Arcodia, G. F. 2017. Towards a typology of relative clauses in Sinitic: Headedness and relativization strategies. Cahiers de linguistique – Asie orientale/East Asian Languages and Linguistics 46: 32–72.Google Scholar
Arka, I. W. 2016. Externally and internally headed relative clauses in Marori. In Arnold, D., Butt, M., Crysmann, B., Holloway King, T., Müller, S., eds., Proceedings of the Joint 2016 Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and Lexical Functional Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 23–42. https://stanford.io/34jTcmLGoogle Scholar
Arnold, D. 2004. Non-restrictive relative clauses in construction-based HPSG. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 27–47.Google Scholar
Arnold, D. 2007. Non-restrictive relatives are not orphans. Journal of Linguistics 43: 271–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, D. & Bargmann, S. 2016. Idiom licensing in non-restrictive relative clauses (NRCs). Poster presented at PARSEME, 7th General Meeting, Dubrovnik, 26–27 September. https://bit.ly/34jyvYfGoogle Scholar
Arnold, D. & Borsley, R. 2008. Non-restrictive relative clauses, ellipsis and anaphora. In Müller, S., ed., Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 325–45. https://stanford.io/37BGiCCGoogle Scholar
Arnold, D. & Borsley, R. 2010. Auxiliary-stranding relative clauses. In Müller, S., ed., Proceedings of the HPSG10 Conference, Université Paris Diderot, Paris 7, France. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 47–67. https://bit.ly/37CVe3FGoogle Scholar
Arsenijević, B. & Gračanin-Yüksek, M. 2016. Agreement and the structure of relative clauses. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1(1): 17. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arsenijević, B. & Halupka-Rešetar, S. 2013. On the topical nature of non-restrictively used relative pronouns. Paper given at the 35th Annual Conference of the German Linguistic Society, Potsdam, 12–15 March.Google Scholar
Assmann, A. 2013. Three stages in the derivation of free relatives. In Heck, F. & Assmann, A., eds., Rule Interaction in Grammar. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig. 203–45.Google Scholar
Auger, J. 1994. Pronominal Clitics in Quebec Colloquial French: A Morphological Analysis. PhD diss. University of Pennsylvania. https://bit.ly/2KSero6Google Scholar
Auger, J. 1995. On the history of relative clauses in French and some of its dialects. In Andersen, H., ed., Historical Linguistics 1993: Selected papers from the 11th international conference on historical linguistics, Los Angeles, 16–20 August 1993. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 19–32.Google Scholar
Authier, J.-M. & Reed, L. 2005. The diverse nature of non-interrogative wh. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 635–47.Google Scholar
Aygen, G. 2003. Are there ‘non-restrictive’ prerelatives in Turkish? Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 199–212.Google Scholar
Bader, M. & Bayer, J. 2006. Case and Linking in Language Comprehension: Evidence from German. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Bagchi, T. 1994. Bangla correlative pronouns, relative clause order and D-linking. In Butt, M., King, T. Holloway & Ramchand, G., eds., Theoretical Perspectives on Word Order in South Asian Languages. Stanford, CA: CSLI. 13–30.Google Scholar
Bağrıaçık, M. & Danckaert, L. 2016. On the emergence of prenominal and postnominal relative clauses in Pharasiot Greek. MS. University of Ghent.Google Scholar
Baltin, M. 1982. A landing site theory of movement rules. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 1–38.Google Scholar
Baltin, M. 1987. Do antecedent-contained deletions exist? Linguistic Inquiry 18: 579–95.Google Scholar
Baltin, M. 2005. Extraposition. In Everaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H., eds., The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 237–71.Google Scholar
Barbiers, S. 1995. The Syntax of Interpretation. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Barbiers, S. 2005. Word order variation in three-verb clusters and the division of labour between generative linguistics and sociolinguistics. In Cornips, L. & Corrigan, K. P., eds., Syntax and Variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 233–64.Google Scholar
Barker, C. 2012. Quantificational binding does not require c-command. Linguistic Inquiry 43: 614–33.Google Scholar
Barker, C. 2019. Evaluation order, crossover, and reconstruction. In Krifka, M. & Schenner, M., eds., Reconstruction Effects in Relative Clauses. Berlin: de Gruyter. 357–85.Google Scholar
Barss, A., Hale, K., Perkins, E. A. & Speas, M. 1989. Aspects of logical form in Navajo. In Cook, E.-D. & Rice, K., eds., Athapaskan Linguistics: Current perspectives on a language family. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 317–34.Google Scholar
Barss, A., Hale, K., Perkins, E. A. & Speas, M. 1992. Logical form and barriers in Navajo. In Huang, C.-T. J. & May, R., eds., Logical Structure and Linguistic Structure: Cross-linguistic perspectives. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 25–47.Google Scholar
Barwise, J. & Cooper, R. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–219.Google Scholar
Basilico, D. 1996. Head position and internally headed relative clauses. Language 72: 498–532. https://www.jstor.org/stable/416277Google Scholar
Bassi, I. & Rasin, E. 2018. Equational-intensional relative clauses with syntactic reconstruction. In Sauerland, U. & Solt, S., eds., Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 22. Vol. 1. ZASPiL 60. ZAS, Berlin. 143–59.Google Scholar
Battye, A. C. 1989. Free relatives, pseudo-free relatives and the syntax of CP in Italian. Rivista di Linguistica 1 (2): 219–46.Google Scholar
Bayer, J. 1999. Final complementizers in hybrid languages. Journal of Linguistics 35: 233–71.Google Scholar
Bayer, J. & Bader, M. 2007. On the syntax of prepositional phrases. In Späth, A., ed., Interface and Interface Conditions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 157–79.Google Scholar
Bayer, J., Bader, M. & Meng, M. 2001. Morphological underspecification meets oblique case: Syntactic and processing effects in German. Lingua 111: 465–514.Google Scholar
Bayer, J. & Salzmann, M. 2013. That-trace effects and resumption – How improper movement can be repaired. In Brandt, P. & Fuß, E., eds., Repairs: The added value of being wrong. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 275–334.Google Scholar
Bayırlı, İ. K. 2017. The universality of concord. PhD diss. MIT. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/113785Google Scholar
Beal, J. C. & Corrigan, K. P. 2002. Relatives in Tyneside and Northumbrian English. In Poussa, P., ed., Relativisation on the North Sea Littoral. Munich: Lincom Europa. 125–34.Google Scholar
Beck, D. 2016. Relative clauses in Upper Necaxa Totonac. Linguistic Discovery 14: 1–45. DOI:10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.469Google Scholar
Beermann, D. & Ephrem, B. 2007. The definite article and possessive marking in Amharic. In Hoyt, F., Seifert, N., Teodorescu, A. & White, J., eds., Proceedings of the Texas Linguistics Society IX Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 21–32. https://stanford.io/2qDRiz2Google Scholar
Belikova, A. 2008. Syntactically challenged rather than reduced: Participial relatives revisited. Proceedings of the 2008 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. https://bit.ly/2OmzAc3Google Scholar
Belletti, A. 1982. ‘Morphological’ passive and pro drop: The impersonal construction in Italian. Journal of Linguistic Reserch. 2 (4): 1–33.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. 2004. Aspects of the low IP area. In Rizzi, L., ed., The Structure of CP and IP. New York: Oxford University Press. 16–51.Google Scholar
Benincà, P. 1994. La variazione sintattica. Studi di dialettologia romanza. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Benincà, P. 1995. I dati dell’ASIS e la sintassi diacronica. In Banfi, E., Bonfadini, G., Cordin, P., & Iliescu, M., eds., Italia settentrionale: Crocevia di idiomi romanzi. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 131–41.Google Scholar
Benincà, P. 2003. La frase relativa in fiorentino antico. V° Incontro di dialettologia, University of Bristol, 26–27 September.Google Scholar
Benincà, P. 2007. Headless relative clauses in Old Italian and some related issues. Handout of a paper presented at the Université de Paris VIII, 13 December.Google Scholar
Benincà, P. 2010. Headless relatives in some Old Italian varieties. In D’Alessandro, R., Ledgeway, A. & Roberts, I., eds., Syntactic Variation: The Dialects of Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 55–70.Google Scholar
Benincà, P. 2012a. Frasi relative e strutture copulari. In Orioles, V. and Borghello, P., eds., Per Roberto Gusmani: Studi in ricordo. Udine: Forum. 251–67.Google Scholar
Benincà, P. 2012b. Lexical complementizers and headless relatives. In Brugè, L., Cardinaletti, A., Giusti, G., Munaro, N. & Poletto, C., eds., Functional Heads. The cartography of syntactic structures. Vol. 7. New York: Oxford University Press. 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benincà, P. 2012c. Determiners and relative clauses. Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 4 (1): 92–109.Google Scholar
Benincà, P. 2012d. Relatives and copular structures. Padua Working Papers in Linguistics 5: 29–44. https://bit.ly/2OkMhUW.Google Scholar
Benincà, P. & Cinque, G. 1991. Participio presente. In Renzi, L. & Salvi, G., eds., Grande Grammatica Italiana di Consultazione. Vol. II. Bologna: il Mulino. 604–9.Google Scholar
Benincà, P. & Cinque, G. 2010 La frase relativa. In Salvi, G. & Renzi, L., eds., Grammatica dell’italiano antico. Vol. I. Bologna: Il Mulino. 469–507.Google Scholar
Benincà, P. & Cinque, G. 2014 Kind-defining relative clauses in the diachrony of Italian. In Benincà, P., Ledgeway, A. & Vincent, N., eds., Diachrony and Dialects: Grammatical change in the dialects of Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 257–78.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. The cartography of syntactic structures. Vol. 2. New York: Oxford University Press. 52–75.Google Scholar
Benincà, P. & Tortora, C. 2009. Towards a finer-grained theory of Italian participial clausal architecture. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics. 15 (1), Article 4. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol15/iss1/4Google Scholar
Benincà, P. & Vanelli, L. 1982. Appunti di sintassi veneta. In Cortelazzo, M., ed., Guida ai dialetti veneti IV. Padova: CLEUP. 7–38.Google Scholar
Berizzi, M. 2001. The theory of relative clauses and the dialects of English. Thesis. University of Padua.Google Scholar
Berman, A. 1974. Infinitival relative constructions. Papers from the 10th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 37–46.Google Scholar
Berman, H. 1972. Subordinate clauses in Yurok – A preliminary report. In Peranteau, P. M., Levi, J. N. & Phares, G. C., eds., The Chicago Which Hunt: Papers from the relative clause festival. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 256–61.Google Scholar
Berry, K. & Berry, C. 1999. A Description of Abun: A West Papuan language of Irian Jaya. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Bertollo, S. 2014. On relatives with a null head: German free relative clauses and clefts. PhD diss. University of Padua. https://bit.ly/2rsb0xHGoogle Scholar
Bertollo, S. & Cavallo, G. 2012. The syntax of Italian free relative clauses: An analysis. Generative Grammar in Geneva 8: 59–76. https://bit.ly/33mrBQzGoogle Scholar
Bertone, C. 2006. La struttura del sintagma determinante nella Lingua dei Segni Italiana (LIS). PhD diss. Ca’ Foscari University, Venice. http://lear.unive.it/jspui/bitstream/11707/313/1/Bertone.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, R. 1997. Matching effects and the syntax-morphology interface: Evidence from Hindi correlatives. In Bruening, B., ed., Proceedings of SCIL 8. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 31. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. 53–68.Google Scholar
Bhatt, R. 1999. Covert modality in non-finite contexts. PhD diss. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Bhatt, R. 2002. The raising analysis of relative clauses: Evidence from adjectival modification. Natural Language Semantics 10: 43–90.Google Scholar
Bhatt, R. 2003. Locality in correlatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 485–541.Google Scholar
Bhatt, R. 2005. Correlative clauses. Handout of a course at the 2005 LOT Summer School, Leiden, 16 June. http://people.umass.edu/bhatt/752-s05/n44.pdf.Google Scholar
Bhatt, R. 2015. Relative clauses and correlatives. In Alexiadou, A. & Kiss, T., eds., Syntax – Theory and Analysis. An international handbook. Vol. 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 708–49.Google Scholar
Bhatt, R. & Pancheva, R. 2012. Two superlative puzzles. Paper given at Generative Initiatives in Syntactic Theory (GIST), 22–23 March, University of Ghent.Google Scholar
Bianchi, V. 1991. Le relative infinitive e altre strutture modali infinitive in italiano. Quaderni del Laboratorio di Linguistica 5: 51–69.Google Scholar
Bianchi, V. 1993. An empirical contribution to the study of idiomatic expressions. Rivista di Linguistica 5: 349–85. http://linguistica.sns.it/RdL/5.2/Bianchi.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, V. 1995. Consequences of Antisymmetry for the syntax of headed relative clauses. PhD diss. Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa.Google Scholar
Bianchi, V. 1999. Consequences of Antisymmetry: Headed relative clauses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bianchi, V. 2000a. The raising analysis of relative clauses: A reply to Borsley. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 123–40.Google Scholar
Bianchi, V. 2000b. Some issues in the syntax of relative determiners. In Alexiadou, A., Law, P., Meinunger, A. & Wilder, C., eds., The Syntax of Relative Clauses. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 53–81.Google Scholar
Bianchi, V. 2002. Headed relative clauses in generative syntax. Glot International, Part I, 6 (7): 197–204; Part II 6 (8): 235–47.Google Scholar
Bianchi, V. 2004. Resumptive relatives and LF chains. In Rizzi, L., ed., The Structure of CP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures. Vol. 2. New York: Oxford University Press. 76–114.Google Scholar
Bianchi, V. 2007. Wh-infinitives and the licensing of ‘Anaphoric Tense’. In Picchi, M. C. & Pona, A., eds., Proceedings of the XXXII Incontro di Grammatica Generativa. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso. 35–47.Google Scholar
Bianchi, V. 2011. Some notes on the specificity effects of optional resumptive pronouns. In Rouveret, A., ed., Resumptive Pronouns at the Interfaces. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 319–42.Google Scholar
Bickel, B. 1995. Relatives à antécédent interne, nominalisation et focalisation: Entre syntaxe et morphologie en bélharien. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, XC 1: 391–427.Google Scholar
Bidese, E., Padovan, A. & Tomaselli, A. 2012. A binary system of complementizers in Cimbrian relative clauses. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 90: 1–21. https://bit.ly/37IOscEGoogle Scholar
Bird, C. B. 1968. Relative clauses in Bambara. The Journal of West African Languages 5: 35–47.Google Scholar
Biskup, P. & Šimík, R. 2019. Structure of conditional and (cor)relative clauses: New evidence from locality. MS. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004573Google Scholar
Bliese, L. 1981. A Generative Grammar of Afar. Arlington: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas.Google Scholar
Blümel, A. 2011. Derjenige determiner that wants a relative clause. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 17(1): 21–9. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol17/iss1/4Google Scholar
Blümel, A. & Liu, M. 2019. Revisiting obligatory relatives in German: Empirical and theoretical perspectives. MS. Georg-August-Universität Göttingen.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D. 2017. Adjectival hydras: Restrictive modifiers above DP. In Mayr, C. & Williams, E., eds., Festschrift für Martin Prinzhorn. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 82. Vienna: Institute of Linguistics, University of Vienna. 13–22. https://bit.ly/2KYQxatGoogle Scholar
Bodomo, A. B. & Hiraiwa, K. 2004. Relativization in Dagaare. Journal of Dagaare Studies 4: 53–75.Google Scholar
Bodomo, A. B. & Hiraiwa, K. 2010. Relativization in Dàgáárè and its typological implications: Left-headed but internally-headed. Lingua 120: 953–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.06.008Google Scholar
Boef, E. 2012. Doubling in Dutch restrictive relative clauses: Rethinking the head external analysis. In Boone, E., Linke, K. & Schulpen, M., eds., Proceedings of ConSOLE XIX. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden. 125–49.Google Scholar
Boef, E. 2013. Doubling in relative clauses: Aspects of morphosyntactic microvariation in Dutch. PhD diss. Utrecht University. https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/261909Google Scholar
Bogal-Allbritten, E. & Moulton, K. 2017. Navajo in the typology of internally-headed relatives. Proceedings of SALT 27. 700–20. https://bit.ly/2qELoh3Google Scholar
Bogal-Allbritten, E., Moulton, K. & Shimoyama, J. 2016. Stay inside: The interpretation of internally headed relative clauses in Navajo. Paper presented at the Canadian Linguistics Association Meeting. https://elizabethba.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/cla-talk.pdfGoogle Scholar
Boisson, C. 1981. Hiérarchie universelle des spécifications de temps, de lieu, et de manière. Confluents 7: 69–124.Google Scholar
Bokamba, E. & Dramé, M. 1978. Where do relative clauses come from in Mandingo? Papers from the 14th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 28–43.Google Scholar
Bonneau, J. 1990. Logical form and an analysis of the matching effect in free relatives. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 6 (2): 137–66.Google Scholar
Bonneau, J. 1992. The structure of internally headed relative clauses: Implications for configurationality. PhD diss. McGill University.Google Scholar
Borer, H. 1984. Restrictive relatives in Modern Hebrew. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2: 219–60.Google Scholar
Borsley, R. D. 1984. Free relatives in Polish and English. In Fisiak, J., ed., Contrastive Linguistics: Prospects and Problems. Berlin: Mouton. 1–18.Google Scholar
Borsley, R. D. 1997. Relative clauses and the theory of phrase structure. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 629–47.Google Scholar
Borsley, R. D. 2001. More on the raising analysis of relative clauses. MS. University of Essex.Google Scholar
Borsley, R. D. 2010. The diversity of relative clauses. Handout of a talk given at the Colchester which hunt – A workshop in relative clauses. 4 June.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2009. On relativization strategies and resumptive pronouns. In Zybatow, G., Junghanns, U., Lenertová, D. & Biskup, P., eds., Studies in Formal Slavic Phonology, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics and Information Structure: Proceedings of FDSL 7. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 79–93.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2012. On NPs and clauses. In Grewendorf, G. & Zimmermann, T. E., eds., Discourse and Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 179–242.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2018. On movement out of moved elements, labels, and phases. Linguistic Inquiry 49: 247–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouton, L. 1970. Antecedent contained proforms. In Papers from the 6th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 154–67.Google Scholar
Boyle, J. P. 2007. Hidatsa morphosyntax and clause structure. PhD diss. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Boyle, J. P. 2016. The syntax and semantics of internally headed relative clauses in Hidatsa. In Rudin, C. & Gordon, B. J., eds., Advances in the Study of Siouan Languages and Linguistics. Berlin: Language Science Press. 255–87.Google Scholar
Bradley, C. H. & Hollenbach, B. E. 1992, eds., Studies in the syntax of Mixtecan languages. Vol. 4. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, J. 2009. Relative-clause bracketing in Oceanic languages around the Huon Gulf of New Guinea. In Adelaar, A. & Pawley, A., eds., Austronesian Historical Linguistics and Culture History: A festschrift for Robert Blust. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. 143–61.Google Scholar
Brame, M. 1967. A new analysis of the relative clause: Evidence for an interpretive theory. MS. MIT.Google Scholar
Brame, M. 1976. Conjectures and Refutations in Syntax and Semantics. New York: North Holland Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Branchini, C. 2014. On Relativization and Clefting: An analysis of Italian sign language. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton and Preston: Ishara Press.Google Scholar
Branchini, C. & Donati, C. 2009. Relatively different: Italian sign language relative clauses in a typological perspective. In Lipták, A., ed., Correlatives Cross-Linguistically. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 157–91.Google Scholar
Brandner, E. & Bräuning, I. 2013. Relative wo in Alemannic: Only a complementizer? Linguistische Berichte 234: 131–69.Google Scholar
Breivik, L. E. 1997. Relative infinitives in English. Studia Neophilologica 69: 109–37.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. 1973. ‘Headless’ relatives. Mimeograph. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. & Grimshaw, J.. 1978. The syntax of free relatives in English. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 331–91.Google Scholar
Brillman, R. 2015. Improper movement in tough constructions and gapped degree phrases. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 21: Article 4. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol21/iss1/4Google Scholar
Brito, A. M. 1991. A sintaxe das oraçoes relativas em português. PhD diss. Centro de Linguística da Universidade do Porto.Google Scholar
Brito, A. M. 2005. As relativas não restritivas como um caso particular de aposição. Actas do XX Encontro Nacional da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística. Lisbon: Associação Portuguesa de Linguística. 401–19.Google Scholar
Browne, W. 1970. Noun phrase definiteness in relatives and questions: Evidence from Macedonian. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 267–70.Google Scholar
Browne, W. 1986. Relative clauses in Serbo-Croatian in comparison with English. The Yugoslav Serbo-Croatian–English Contrastive Project. Vol. 4. Zagreb, University of Zagreb.Google Scholar
Brucart, J. M. 1992. Some asymmetries in the functioning of relative pronouns in Spanish. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics 2: 113–43. https://ddd.uab.cat/record/20988Google Scholar
Brucart, J. M. 1999. La estructura del sintagma nominal: Las oraciones de relativo. In Bosque, I. & Demonte, V., eds., Gramatica descriptiva de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. 395–522.Google Scholar
Bruening, B. 2001. Syntax at the edge: Cross-clausal phenomena and the syntax of Passamaquoddy. PhD diss. MIT. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/8198Google Scholar
Bruening, B. 2015. Idioms: Movement and non-movement dependencies. MS. University of Delaware. http://udel.edu/~bruening/Downloads/IdiomsMovement1.pdfGoogle Scholar
Brugger, G. & Prinzhorn, M. 1996. Some Properties of German Determiners. MS. University of Vienna.Google Scholar
Brunelli, M. 2006. The grammar of Italian sign language, with a study about its restrictive relative clauses. MA diss. Ca’ Foscari University, Venice.Google Scholar
Brunelli, M. 2011. Antisymmetry and sign languages: A comparison between NGT and LIS. PhD diss. University of Amsterdam and Ca’ Foscari University, Venice. https://bit.ly/37J5W8JGoogle Scholar
Bugaeva, A. & Whitman, J. 2014. Deconstructing clausal noun modifying constructions. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 23: 1–12. https://stanford.io/2ruaQFWGoogle Scholar
Büring, D. 2002. Orphan attributes. In Mikkelsen, L. & Potts, C., eds., Proceedings of the 21st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. 100–13. https://bit.ly/37HIJUnGoogle Scholar
Bury, D. 2003. Phrase structure and derived heads. PhD diss. University College London.Google Scholar
Butler, A. 2002. Relatives and there-insertion. In van Koppen, M., Thrift, E., van der Torre, E. J. & Zimmermann, M., eds., Proceedings of ConSOLE IX. 28–40. https://bit.ly/2ruQ4GkGoogle Scholar
Butt, M., Holloway King, T. & Roth, S. 2007. Urdu correlatives: Theoretical and implementational issues. In Butt, M. & Holloway King, T., eds., Proceedings of the LFG07 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. https://stanford.io/33p2yfYGoogle Scholar
Cable, S. 2005. Free relatives in Lingít and Haida: Evidence that the mover projects. MS. MIT. https://bit.ly/2OPoc7JGoogle Scholar
Cable, S. 2010a. The Grammar of Q: Q-particles, wh-movement, and pied-piping. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cable, S. 2010b. Against the existence of pied-piping: evidence from Tlingit. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 563–94.Google Scholar
Cable, S. 2012. Pied-Piping: Introducing two recent approaches. Language and Linguistics Compass 6 (12): 816–32.Google Scholar
Cable, S. 2013. Pied-Piping: Comparing two recent approaches. Language and Linguistics Compass 7 (2): 123–40.Google Scholar
Cabredo Hofherr, P. 2014. Reduced definite articles with restrictive relative clauses. In Cabredo Hofherr, P. & Zribi-Hertz, A., eds., Crosslinguistic Studies on Noun Phrase Structure and Reference. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 39. Leiden: Brill. 172–211. https://bit.ly/2DnFfZbGoogle Scholar
Cagri, I. M. 2005. Minimality and Turkish relative clauses. PhD diss. University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Callegari, E. 2014. Why locality-based accounts of the left periphery are unfit to account for its variation. Paper given at the Variation in C Workshop, Venice, 21 October.Google Scholar
Camacho, J. 2003. The Structure of Coordination: Conjunction and agreement phenomena in Spanish and other languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Camilleri, M. & Sadler, L. 2016. Relativisation in Maltese. Transactions of the Philological Society 114: 117–45. https://bit.ly/2rvN10BGoogle Scholar
Canac Marquis, R. & Tremblay, M. 1998. The wh-feature and the syntax of restrictive and non-restrictive relatives in French and English. In Lema, J. & Treviño, E., eds., Theoretical Analyses of Romance Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 127–41.Google Scholar
Cantrall, W. R. 1972. Relative identity. In Peranteau, P. M., Levi, J. N., Phares, G. C., eds., Papers from the 8th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 22–31.Google Scholar
Caponigro, I. 2003. Free not to ask: On the semantics of free relatives and wh-words cross-linguistically. PhD diss. UCLA.Google Scholar
Caponigro, I. 2004. The semantic contribution of wh-words and type shifts: Evidence from free relatives cross-linguistically. In Young, R. B., ed., Proceedings of SALT 14. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University CLC Publications. 38–55.Google Scholar
Caponigro, I. 2019. In defense of what(ever) free relative clauses they dismiss: A reply to Donati and Cecchetto (2011). Linguistic Inquiry 50 (2): 356–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00311Google Scholar
Caponigro, I. & Fălăuş, A. 2018a. Free choice free relatives in Italian and Romanian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 36: 323–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9375-yGoogle Scholar
Caponigro, I. & Fălăuş, A. 2018b. The functional nature of multiple wh- free relative clauses. Proceedings of SALT 28. 566–83. https://bit.ly/37H208qGoogle Scholar
Caponigro, I. & Pearl, L. 2008. Silent prepositions: Evidence from free relatives. In Asbury, A., Dotlačil, J., Gehrke, B. & Nouwen, R., eds., Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 365–85. https://bit.ly/2L0r0xzGoogle Scholar
Caponigro, I. & Pearl, L. 2009. The nominal nature of where, when, and how: Evidence from free relatives. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 155–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.1.155Google Scholar
Caponigro, I. & Polinsky, M. 2008. Relatively speaking (in Circassian). Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. 81–9. http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/27/paper1819.pdfGoogle Scholar
Caponigro, I. & Polinsky, M. 2011. Relative embeddings: A Circassian puzzle for the syntax/semantics interface. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 71–122.Google Scholar
Caponigro, I., Torrence, H. & Cisneros, C. 2013. Free relative clauses in two Mixtec languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 79(1): 61–96. https://bit.ly/2L0FJsxGoogle Scholar
Cardoso, A. 2010. Variation and change in the syntax of relative clauses. New evidence from Portuguese. PhD diss. University of Lisbon. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/12423109.pdfGoogle Scholar
Cardoso, A. & De Vries, M. 2010. Internal and external heads in appositive constructions. MS. https://bit.ly/2XSLFsRGoogle Scholar
Casalicchio, J. 2013a. Pseudorelative, gerundi e infiniti nelle varietà romanze: affinità (solo) superficiali e corrispondenze strutturali. Munich: Lincom Europa. https://bit.ly/2QWd9fxGoogle Scholar
Casalicchio, J. 2013b. The pseudo-relatives and other correspondent constructions in the Romance languages. In Windhaber, I. & Anreiter, P., eds., Proceedings of the 4th Austrian Students’ Conference of Linguistics. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 64–84.Google Scholar
Casalicchio, J. 2015. La costruzione ‘con + DP + pseudorelativa’: Proposta per una duplice interpretazione. In Plurilinguismo/Sintassi: Atti del XLVI Congresso Internazionale di Studi della Società di Linguistica Italiana. Rome: Bulzoni. 467–82.Google Scholar
Casalicchio, J. 2016a. The use of gerunds and infinitives in perceptive constructions: The effects of a threefold parametric variation in some Romance varieties. In Bidese, E., Cognola, F. & Moroni, M. C., eds., Theoretical Approaches to Linguistic Variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 53–87.Google Scholar
Casalicchio, J. 2016b. Pseudo-relatives and their left-periphery. A unified account. In Carrilho, E., Fiéis, A., Lobo, M. & Pereira, S., eds., Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 10: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ 28, Lisbon. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 23–42.Google Scholar
Catasso, N. 2013. For a headed analysis of free relatives in German and English: The ‘free relative economy principle’. Linguistics Journal 7: 273–93.Google Scholar
Catasso, N. 2014. Wie viele Jungs haben Anna geküsst? Zum besonderen Status von V2-Relativsätzen im gesprochenen Deutsch. Linguistik Online 67 (5): 45–68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13092/lo.67.1599Google Scholar
Catasso, N. & Hinterhölzl, R. 2016. On the question of subordination or coordination in V2-relatives in German. In Reich, I. & Speyer, A., eds., Co- and Subordination in German and Other Languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag. 99–124.Google Scholar
Cattaneo, A. 2007. Italian null objects, resultative/depictive predication, and HAB. NYU Working Papers in Linguistics 1.Google Scholar
Cecchetto, C. 2006. Reconstruction in relative clauses and the copy theory of traces. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 5: 73–103.Google Scholar
Cecchetto, C. & Donati, C. 2010. On labeling: Principle C and head movement. Syntax 13: 241−78.Google Scholar
Cecchetto, C. & Donati, C 2011. Relabeling heads: a unified account for relativization structures. Linguistic Inquiry 42: 519–60. http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/001014Google Scholar
Cecchetto, C. & Donati, C 2020. Relabeling participial constructions. In L. Franco & P. Lorusso, eds., Linguistic Variation: Structure and Interpretation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 149–62.Google Scholar
Cecchetto, C., Geraci, C. & Zucchi, S. 2006. Strategies of relativization in Italian Sign Language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24: 945–75.Google Scholar
Cennamo, M. 1997. Relative clauses. In Maiden, M. & Parry, M., eds., The Dialects of Italy. London: Routledge. 190–201.Google Scholar
Čeplová, M. 2007. Infinitives under ‘have’/’be’ in Czech. In Dočekal, M., Karlík, P. & Zmrzlíková, , eds., Czech in Generative Grammar. Munich: Lincom Europa. 31–45.Google Scholar
Cha, J.-Y. 1998. Relative clause or noun complement clause: Some Diagnoses. MS. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Cha, J.-Y. 1999. Semantics of Korean Gapless Relative Clause Constructions. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29: 25–41.Google Scholar
Chao, Y. R. 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Chaves, R. P. 2012. Conjunction, cumulation and respectively readings. Journal of Linguistics 48: 297–344. DOI:10.1017/S0022226712000059Google Scholar
Chen, Y. & Fukuda, S. 2018. An experimental investigation of the reconstruction of anaphors in Japanese relative clauses. In Guillemot, C., Yoshida, T. & Lee, S. J., eds., Proceedings of the 13th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 88. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. 311–18.Google Scholar
Cheng, L. L.-S. 2000. Moving just the feature. In Lutz, U., Müller, G. & von Stechow, A., eds., Wh-Scope Marking. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 77–99.Google Scholar
Cheng, L. L.-S. & Downing, L. J. 2010. Locative relatives in Durban Zulu. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 53: 33–51.Google Scholar
Cheng, L. L.-S., & Sybesma, R. 2005. A Chinese relative. In Broekhuis, H., Corver, N., Huybregts, R., Kleinhenz, U. & Koster, J., eds., Organizing Grammar: Studies in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijk. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 69–76.Google Scholar
Chidambaram, V. S. 2013. On resumptive pronouns in Slavic. PhD diss. Princeton University.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. & Caponigro, I. 2013. Questions on questions and free relatives. Handout of a paper presented at Sinn und Bedeutung, Vitoria, Basque Country. https://bit.ly/2r5EO3fGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1973. Conditions on tranformations. In Anderson, S. & Kiparsky, P., eds., A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 232–86.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1975. Questions of form and interpretation. Linguistic Analysis 1: 75–109.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1977. On wh-movement. In Culicover, P. W., Wasow, T., & Akmajian, A., eds., Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press. 71–132.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J., eds., The View from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1–52.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by Phase. In Kenstowicz, M., ed., Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1–52.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Belletti, A., ed., Structures and Beyond. The cartography of syntactic structures. Vol. 3. New York: Oxford University Press. 104–31.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2008. On phases. In Freidin, R., Otero, C. P. & Zubizarreta, M. L., eds., Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 133–66.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2015. A discussion with Naoki Fukui and Mihoko Zushi. In Fukui, N., ed., Noam Chomsky: The Sophia lectures. Sophia Linguistica Working Papers in Linguistics 64. Tokyo: Sophia University. 71–97.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. Gallego, Á. J. & Ott, D. 2017/2019. Generative grammar and the faculty of language: Insights, questions, and challenges. MS. MIT. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003507Google Scholar
Choueiri, L. 2002. Issues in the syntax of resumption: Restrictive relatives in Lebanese Arabic. PhD diss. University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Christensen, K. R. & Nyvad, A. M. 2014. On the nature of escapable relative islands. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 37: 29–45. DOI: 10.1017/S0332586514000055Google Scholar
Chung, S. 1987. The syntax of Chamorro existential sentences. In Reuland, E. J. & ter Meulen, A. G. B., eds., The Representation of (In)definiteness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 191–225.Google Scholar
Chung, S. & McCloskey, J. 1983. On the interpretation of certain island facts in GPSG. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 704–13.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 1976. ‘Mica’: note di sintassi e pragmatica. Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell'Università di Padova, 1. 101–12. http://lear.unive.it/jspui/bitstream/11707/5924/1/Mica.pdfGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. 1978. La sintassi dei pronomi relativi ‘cui’ e ‘quale’ nell’italiano moderno. Rivista di grammatica generativa 3 (1): 31–126. https://bit.ly/33FwhRNGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. 1979. Left dislocation in Italian: A syntactic and pragmatic analysis. Cahiers de lexicologie XXXIV: 96–127.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 1981. On Keenan and Comrie’s primary relativization constraint. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 293–308.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 1982. On the theory of relative clauses and markedness. The Linguistic Review 1: 247–94. Reprinted with corrections in G. Cinque 1995 Italian Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 54–103.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 1988. La frase relativa. In Renzi, L., ed., Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione. Vol 1. Bologna: Il Mulino. 443–503.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 1994. On the evidence for partial N-movement in the Romance DP. In Cinque, G., Koster, J., Pollock, J.-Y., Rizzi, L. & Zanuttini, R., eds., Paths Towards Universal Grammar: Studies in honor of Richard S. Kayne. Washington: Georgetown University Press. 85–110.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 1995. The pseudo-relative and ACC-ing constructions after verbs of perception. In Cinque, G., Italian Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 244–75.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 1996. The antisymmetric programme: Theoretical and typological implications. Journal of Linguistics 32: 447–64.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 1999 Adverbs and Functional Heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 2002. Complement and adverbial PPs: Implications for clause structure. MS. University of Venice.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 2003. The prenominal origin of relative clauses. Paper presented at the Workshop on Antisymmetry and Remnant Movement, New York University, 31 October–1 November.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 2004a. ‘Restructuring’ and functional structure. In Belletti, A., ed., Structures and Beyond. The cartography of syntactic structures. Vol. 3. New York: Oxford University Press. 132–91.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 2004b. A phrasal movement analysis of the Romanian DP. In Minuţ, A. & Munteanu, E., eds., Studia linguistica et philologica in honorem D. Irimia. Iaşi: Editura Universităţii ‘A. I. Cuza’. 129–42. https://bit.ly/34JVcVFGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. 2005. Deriving Greenberg’s universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 315–32. https://bit.ly/2Y8YoHSGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. 2006a. Two types of appositives. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 16: 7–56. https://bit.ly/35ZcMp1Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 2006b. Restructuring and Functional Heads. The cartography of syntactic structures. Vol. 4. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 2007. A note on linguistic theory and typology. Linguistic Typology 11. 93–106. http://hdl.handle.net/11707/123Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 2008a. Two types of non-restrictive relatives. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 7: 99–137. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss7Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 2008b. More on the indefinite character of the Head of restrictive relatives. In Benincà, P., Damonte, F. & Penello, N., eds., Selected Proceedings of the 34th Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, Padova: Unipress. https://bit.ly/34HacDSGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. 2009a. The fundamental left–right asymmetry of natural languages. In Scalise, S., Magni, E. & Bisetto, A., eds., Universals of Language Today. Dordrecht: Springer 165–84. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-8825-4_9Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 2009b. Five notes on correlatives. In Mohanty, R. & Menon, M., eds., Universals and Variation: Proceedings of Glow in Asia VII 2009. Hyderabad: EFL University Press. 1–20. https://bit.ly/2YdzJluGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. 2010a. The Syntax of Adjectives: A comparative study. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 2010b. On a selective ‘violation’ of the complex NP constraint. In Zwart, J.-W. & De Vries, M., eds., Structure Preserved: Studies in syntax for Jan Koster. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 81–90. https://bit.ly/2DEGkMmGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. 2011a. Greenberg’s universal 23 and SVO languages. In Frascarelli, M., ed., Structures and Meanings: Cross-theoretical perspectives. Paris and Rome: L’Harmattan. 75–80. https://bit.ly/2LjMGoGGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. 2011b. On double-headed relative clauses. Linguística. Revista de Estudos Linguísticos da Universidade do Porto. 6: 67–91.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 2013a. Word order typology. A change of perspective. In Biberauer, T. M. & Sheehan, M., eds., Theoretical Approaches to Disharmonic Word Orders. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 47–73. http://hdl.handle.net/11707/154Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 2013b Typological Studies: Word order and relative clauses. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 2014. Again on tense, aspect, mood morpheme order and the ‘mirror principle’. In Svenonius, P., ed., Functional Structure from Top to Toe. The cartography of syntactic structures. Vol. 9. New York: Oxford University Press. 232–65.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 2015a. Three phenomena discriminating between ‘raising’ and ‘matching’ relative clauses. Semantics-Syntax Interface 2 (1): 1–27.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 2015b. A note on ‘other’. In Brandner, E., Czypionka, A., Freitag, C. & Trotzke, A., eds., Charting the Landscape of Linguistics: Webschrift for Josef Bayer. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz. 22–7.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 2017a. On a difference between Italian, and English and French present participle relatives. In Mayr, C. & Williams, E., eds., Festschrift für Martin Prinzhorn. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 82. 37–50.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 2017b. A microparametric approach to the head-initial/head-final parameter. In Karimi, S. & Piattelli-Palmarini, M., eds., Parameters: What are they? Where are they? Linguistic Analysis 41. 309–66. http://hdl.handle.net/11707/6084Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 2018. Some notes on meaningless movement. Paper presented at the University of Geneva, 6 February, and at the 44th Annual Meeting of Generative Grammar, Rome, 1–3 March.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 2020. On the double-headed analysis of ‘headless’ relative clauses’. In Franco, L. & Lorusso, P., eds., Linguistic Variation: Structure and interpretation. Studies in generative grammar 132. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 169–96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501505201-011Google Scholar
Cinque, G. In preparation. On Greenberg’s universal 20: Refinements and replies.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. & Benincà, P. 2018. Notes on infinitival relatives in Italian. In Grimaldi, M., Lai, R., Franco, L. & Baldi, B., eds., Structuring Variation in Romance Linguistics and Beyond: In honour of Leonardo M. Savoia. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 73–84.Google Scholar
Citko, B. 2000. Parallel merge and the syntax of free relatives. PhD diss. State University of New York, Stony Brook.Google Scholar
Citko, B. 2001. Deletion under identity in relative clauses. Proceedings of NELS 31. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 131–45.Google Scholar
Citko, B. 2002. Anti-reconstruction effects in free relatives: A new argument against the comp account. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 507–11.Google Scholar
Citko, B. 2004. On headed, headless and light-headed relatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 95–126.Google Scholar
Citko, B. 2008a. An argument against assimilating appositive relatives to coordinate structures. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 633–55.Google Scholar
Citko, B. 2008b. Nominal and non-nominal appositives. In Antonenko, A., Bailyn, J. F. & Bethin, C., eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 16: The Stony Brook meeting 2007. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications. 97–114.Google Scholar
Citko, B. 2009. What don’t wh-questions, free relatives, and correlatives have in common? In Lipták, A., ed., Correlatives Cross-linguistically. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 49–79.Google Scholar
Citko, B. 2010. On the distribution of -kolwiek ‘ever’ in Polish free relatives. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 18: 221–58.Google Scholar
Citko, B. 2016. Types of appositive relative clauses in Polish. Studies in Polish Linguistics 11 (3): 85–110.Google Scholar
Citko, B. & Gračanin-Yüksek, M. 2011. Wh-coordination in free relatives. MS. University of Washington and Middle East Technical University, Ankara. https://bit.ly/2P8x5tiGoogle Scholar
Citko, B. & Gračanin-Yüksek, M. 2016. Multiple (coordinated) (free) relatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34: 393–427. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9306-8Google Scholar
Cocchi, G. 2004. Relative clauses in Bantu: Affixes as relative markers. Rivista di grammatica generativa 29: 61–84. https://bit.ly/2P1a4rWGoogle Scholar
Colburn, M. A. 1984. The functions and meanings of the Erima deictic articles. Papers in New Guinea Linguistics 23: 209–72. http://sealang.net/archives/plGoogle Scholar
Cole, P. 1976. An apparent asymmetry in the formation of relative clauses in modern Hebrew. In Cole, P., ed., Studies in Modern Hebrew Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 231–47.Google Scholar
Cole, P. 1987. The Structure of Internally Headed Relative Clauses. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5: 277–302.Google Scholar
Collins, C. & Radford, A. 2015. Gaps, ghosts and gapless relatives in spoken English. Studia Linguistica 69: 191–235.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1996. The unity of noun-modifying clauses in Asian languages. In Pan-Asiatic Linguistics: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Languages and Linguistics, January 8–10, 1996. Salaya, Thailand: Institute of Language and Culture for Rural Development, Mahidol University at Salaya. 1077–88.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1998. Rethinking the typology of relative clauses. Language Design 1: 59–86.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 2003. The verb-marking relative clause strategy, with special reference to Austronesian languages. Linguistik Indonesia 21: 1–18.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. & Kuteva, T. 2005. Relativization strategies. The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 494–7.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. & Polinsky, M. 1999. Form and function in syntax: Relative clauses in Tsez. In Darnell, M., Moravcsik, E., Newmeyer, F., Noonan, M. & Wheatley, K., eds., Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics II: Case studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 77–92.Google Scholar
Constant, N. 2011. Re-diagnosing appositivity: Evidence for prenominal appositives from Mandarin. Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 47–61. https://bit.ly/2LiI16jGoogle Scholar
Cornilescu, A. 1981. Non-restrictive relative clauses: An essay in semantic description. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique XXVI: 41–67.Google Scholar
Corrêa, L. M. S., Augusto, M. R. A. & Marcilese, M. 2018. Competing analyses and differential cost in the production of non-subject relative clauses. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3 (1): 62. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.401Google Scholar
Cortés Rodríguez, L. 1990. Usos anómalos del relativo en español hablado. Revista Española de Lingüística 20 (2): 431–46.Google Scholar
Coto-Solano, R., Molina-Muñoz, A. & Segura, A. G. 2016. Correlative structures in Bribri. In Sadlier-Brown, E., Guntly, E., & Weber, N., eds., Proceedings of the Workshop on Structure and Constituency in the Languages of the Americas 20. University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics 43. 27–41. https://bit.ly/383hWlqGoogle Scholar
Craenenbroeck, J. van & Lipták, A. 2006. The crosslinguistic syntax of sluicing: Evidence from Hungarian relatives. Syntax 9 (3): 248–74.Google Scholar
Crane, T. M., Hyman, L. M. & Tukumu, S. N. 2011. A Grammar of Nzadi (B.865): A Bantu language of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Creissels, D. 2006. Syntaxe générale: Une introduction typologique. 2 vols. Paris: Hermès.Google Scholar
Creissels, D. 2009. Les relatives corrélatives: Le cas du malinké de Kita. Langages 174: 39–52.Google Scholar
Cresti, D. 2000. Ellipsis and reconstruction in relative clauses. In Proceeding of NELS 30. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 153–62.Google Scholar
Crum, B. & Dayley, J. P. 1993. Western Shoshoni Grammar. Boise: Boise State University.Google Scholar
Csató, É. Á. & Uchturpani, M. A. 2010. On Uyghur relative clauses. Turkic Languages 14: 69–93.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. 2011. A reconsideration of English relative constructions. Constructions 2. https://bit.ly/380l4P9Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. 2013. Topicalization, inversion, and complementizers in English. In Culicover, P., ed., Explaining Syntax: Representations, structures and computation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 212–55.Google Scholar
Culy, C. 1990. The syntax and semantics of internally headed relative clauses. PhD diss. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Czypionka, A., Dörre, L. & Bayer, J. 2018. Inverse case attraction: Experimental evidence for a syntactically guided process. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 21: 135–88.Google Scholar
Dasgupta, P. 1980. Questions and relative and complement clauses in a Bangla grammar, PhD diss. New York University.Google Scholar
Dasgupta, P. 2006. Unifying relativization and control in Bangla. In Banerjee, M. et al., eds., Felicitation Volume of Professor V.N. Jha. Kolkata: Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar. 138–70.Google Scholar
Daskalaki, E. 2005. The external category of free relatives: Evidence from modern Greek. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 2: 87–107.Google Scholar
Daskalaki, E. 2011. Case mis-matching as Kase stranding. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics. 17 (1): Article 10. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol17/iss1/10/Google Scholar
d’Avis, F. J. 2004. In front of the prefield – inside or outside the clause? In Lohenstein, H. & Trissler, S., eds., The Syntax and Semantics of the Left Periphery. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 139–77.Google Scholar
Davis, H. 2004. Locative relative clauses in St’at’imcets (Lilloet Salish). In Papers from the 39th ICSNL. Vancouver: UBC Working Papers.Google Scholar
Davis, H. 2010. A unified analysis of relative clauses in St’át’imcets. Northwest Journal of Linguistics 4: 1–43. https://bit.ly/2ONBPFTGoogle Scholar
Davison, A. 2009. Adjunction, features and locality in Sanskrit and Hindi/Urdu correlatives. In Lipták, A., ed., Correlatives Cross-Linguistically. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 223–62.Google Scholar
Dayal, V. 1997. Free relatives and ever: Identity and free choice readings. In Proceedings of SALT 7. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, Cornell University. 99–116.Google Scholar
Deal, A. R. 2016. Cyclicity and connectivity in Nez Perce relative clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 47: 427–70.Google Scholar
Declerck, R. 1982. The triple origin of participial perception verb complements. Linguistic Analysis 10: 1–26.Google Scholar
Dehghani, Y. 2000. A Grammar of Iranian Azari Including Comparisons with Persian. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Del Gobbo, F. 2001. Appositives schmappositives in Chinese. In UCI Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 1–25.Google Scholar
Del Gobbo, F. 2002. Appositives and Chinese relative clauses. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Vol. 1. The Main Session. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 175–190.Google Scholar
Del Gobbo, F. 2003. Appositives at the interface. PhD diss. University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
Del Gobbo, F. 2004. On prenominal relative clauses and appositive adjectives. In Schmeiser, B., Chand, V., Kelleher, A. & Rodriguez, A., eds., Proceedings of the 23rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. 182–94.Google Scholar
Del Gobbo, F. 2005. Chinese relative clauses: Restrictive, descriptive or appositive? In Brugè, L., Giusti, G., Munaro, N., Schweikert, W. & Turano, G., eds., Contributions to the XXX Incontro di Grammatica Generativa. Venice: Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina. 287–305. http://hdl.handle.net/11707/757Google Scholar
Del Gobbo, F. 2007. On the syntax and semantics of appositive relative clauses. In Dehè, N. & Kavalova, Y., eds., Parentheticals. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 173–201.Google Scholar
Del Gobbo, F. 2010. On Chinese appositive relative clauses. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19: 385–417.Google Scholar
Del Gobbo, F. 2015. Appositives in Mandarin Chinese and cross-linguistically. In Li, A., Simpson, A. & Tsai, W.-T. D., eds., Chinese Syntax in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. 73–99.Google Scholar
Del Gobbo, F. 2017. More appositives in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your linguistics. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1): 49. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.14Google Scholar
Dékány, É. 2016. Relative clauses. Handout of a course at the Eastern Generative Grammar (EGG) School 2016. Tbilisi, Georgia.Google Scholar
Demeke, G. 2001. N-final relative clauses: The Amharic case. Studia Linguistica 55: 191–215.Google Scholar
Demirdache, H. 1991. Resumptive Chains in Restrictive Relatives, Appositives and Dislocation Structures. PhD diss. MIT.Google Scholar
Demirok, Ö. 2017a. A compositional semantics for Turkish correlatives. In Zidani-Eroğlu, L., Ciscel, M. & Koulidobrova, E., eds., Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. 79–90. https://bit.ly/3602NjbGoogle Scholar
Demirok, Ö. 2017b. Free relatives and correlatives in wh-in-situ. In Lamont, A. & Tetzloff, K., eds., Proceedings of NELS 47. Vol. 1. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 271–84.Google Scholar
Demuth, K. & Harford, C. 1999. Verb raising and subject inversion in Bantu relatives. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 20: 41–61.Google Scholar
Depiante, M. 2000. The syntax of deep and surface anaphora: A study of null complement anaphora and stripping/bare argument ellipsis. PhD diss. University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
de Sousa, H. 2006. The Menggwa Dla language of New Guinea. PhD diss. University of Sydney. http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/1341Google Scholar
Dikken, M. den 2001. ‘Pluringulars’, pronouns and quirky agreement. The Linguistic Review 18: 19–41.Google Scholar
Dimova, E. 2014. A new look at multiple free relatives: Evidence from Bulgarian. Paper given at the 9th Slavic Linguistics Society Annual Conference, University of Washington, Seattle. 19–21 September. https://bit.ly/35QEhB0Google Scholar
Dimova, E. & Tellier, C. 2015. On multiple free relatives that are not. Paper presented at FDSL 11, Potsdam, 2–4 December. https://bit.ly/34LPEKoGoogle Scholar
Dimova, E. & Tellier, C. 2018. Bulgarian multiple wh relatives revisited. In Franks, S. L., Chidambaram, V., Joseph, B. D. & Krapova, I., eds., Katerino Mome: Studies in Bulgarian Morphosyntax in Honor of Catherine Rudin. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers. 79–91.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2009. Basic Linguistic Theory. Vol. 2: Grammatical topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, C. 1994. The Syntax of Romanian: Comparative studies in Romance. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Doherty, C. 1993. Clauses without that: The case for bare sentential complementation in English. PhD diss. University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Doherty, C. 1994. The syntax of subject contact relatives. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 55–65. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Dombrowski, A. 2012. Multiple relative marking in 19th century West Rumelian Turkish. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 79–90. https://bit.ly/2rN71vHGoogle Scholar
Donati, C. 2006. On wh-head movement. In Cheng, L. L.-S. & Corver, N., eds., Wh-movement: Moving on. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 21–46.Google Scholar
Donati, C. & Cecchetto, C. 2011. Relabeling heads: A unified account for relativization structures. Linguistic Inquiry 42: 519–60.Google Scholar
Donohue, M. 2004. A grammar of the Skou language of New Guinea. MS. National University of Singapore. http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0012-7AAC-9Google Scholar
Doron, E. 1982. On the syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns. Texas Linguistic Forum 19: 1–48.Google Scholar
Doron, E. & Reintges, C. H. 2006. On the syntax of participial modifiers. MS. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Douglas, J. 2015. Agreement (and disagreement) among relatives. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 7: 33–60.Google Scholar
Douglas, J. 2016. The syntactic structures of relativization. PhD diss. University of Cambridge. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003182Google Scholar
Downing, B. T. 1973. Correlative relative clauses and universal grammar. Minnesota Working Papers in Linguistics and Philosophy of Language 2: 1–17.Google Scholar
Downing, B. T. 1978. Some universals of relative clause structure. In Greenberg, J. H., ed., Universals of Human Language. Vol. 4. Syntax. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 375–418.Google Scholar
Dramé, M. 1981. Aspects of Mandingo grammar. PhD diss. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Dreyfuss, G. R. 1977. Relative clause structure in four Creole languages. PhD diss. University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. 2005. Order of relative clause and noun. In Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M., Gil, D. & Comrie, B., eds., The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 366–7.Google Scholar
Duncan, J. D. 2004. The syntax of headed restrictive relative clauses with special reference to Spanish. PhD diss. Pennsylvania State University. https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/2606Google Scholar
Dwivedi, V. 1994a. Topicalization in Hindi and the correlative construction. In Butt, M., King, T. Holloway & Ramchand, G., eds., Theoretical Perspectives on Word Order in South Asian Languages. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 91–118.Google Scholar
Dwivedi, V. 1994b. Syntactic dependencies and relative phrases in Hindi. PhD diss. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Dzameshie, A. K. 1995. Syntactic characteristics of Ewe relative clause constructions. Research Review (NS) 11: 27–42. https://bit.ly/364h7qZGoogle Scholar
Ebert, C., Endriss, C. & Gärtner, H.-M. 2007. An information structural account of German integrated verb second clauses. Research on Language and Computation 5: 415–34.Google Scholar
Ehrenkranz, J. & Hirschland, E. C. 1972. Latin relative clauses. In Peranteau, P. M., Levi, J. N., & Phares, G. C., eds., The Chicago Which Hunt: Papers from the Relative Clause Festival. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 23–9.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. 1976. A Transformational Approach to English Syntax: Root, structure-preserving and local transformations. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. 1979. Appositive relatives have no properties. Linguistic Inquiry 10: 211–43.Google Scholar
Endriss, C. & Gärtner, H.-M. 2005. Relativische Verbzweitsätze und Definitheit. In D’Avis, F. J., ed., Deutsche Syntax: Empirie und Teorie. Göteborg: Göteborgs Universitet. 195–220.Google Scholar
Engdahl, E. 1980. Wh-constructions in Swedish and the relevance of subjacency. In Jensen, J. T., ed., Cahiers Linguisticques D'Ottawa: Proceedings of the Tenth Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Department of Linguistics. 89–108.Google Scholar
Engdahl, E. 1982. Restrictions on unbounded dependencies in Swedish. In Engdahl, E. & Ejerhed, E., eds., Readings on Unbounded Dependencies in Scandinavian Languages. 151–74.Google Scholar
Engdahl, E. 1997. Relative clause extractions in context. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 60: 51–79. https://bit.ly/363R6InGoogle Scholar
Erlewine, M. Y. & Gould, I. 2016. Unifying Japanese relative clauses: Copy-chains and context-sensitivity. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1 (1): 51. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.174Google Scholar
Erlewine, M. Y. & Kotek, H. 2014. Intervention in focus pied-piping. In Huang, H.-L., Poole, E. & Rysling, A., eds., Proceedings of NELS 43. Vol. 1. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 117–30.Google Scholar
Erlewine, M. Y. & Kotek, H. 2015a. The structure and interpretation of non-restrictive relatives: Evidence from relative pronoun pied-piping. Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago : Chicago Linguistic Society. 149–63. http://hkotek.com/CLS51_Erlewine_Kotek_final.pdfGoogle Scholar
Erlewine, M. Y. & Kotek, H. 2015b. Relative pronoun pied-piping in English non-restrictive relatives. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002700/Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N. 1982. Extractability in Danish and the pragmatic principle of dominance. In Engdahl, E. & Ejerhed, E., eds., Readings on Unbounded Dependencies in Scandinavian Languages. 175–91.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N. 2007. Information Structure: The syntax-discourse interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N. & Lappin, S. 1979. Dominance and the functional explanation of island phenomena. Theoretical Linguistics 6: 41–85.Google Scholar
Espinal, M. T. 1991. The representation of disjunct constituents. Language 67 (4): 726–62.Google Scholar
Fabb, N. 1990. The difference between English restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses. Journal of Linguistics 26: 57–78.Google Scholar
Fachner, R. 1986. Der Relativsatz im Bambara. Arbeitspapier Nr. 50. Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, Cologne University. https://bit.ly/2reVbKKGoogle Scholar
Falk, Y. N. 2010. An unmediated analysis of relative clauses. MS. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. http://pluto.huji.ac.il/~msyfalk/Relatives.pdfGoogle Scholar
Faltz, L. M. 1995. Towards a typology of natural logic. In Bach, E., Jelinek, E., Kratzer, A. & Partee, B. H., eds., Quantification in Natural Languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 271–319.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G. 1986. On the sentential nature of prenominal adjectives in German. Folia Linguistica 20: 341–80.Google Scholar
Fedden, O. S. 2007. A grammar of Mian, a Papuan language of New Guinea. PhD diss. University of Melbourne. http://repository.unimelb.edu.au/10187/2044Google Scholar
Felix, S. W. 1985. Parasitic gaps in German. In Abraham, W., ed., Erklärende Syntax des Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr. 173–200.Google Scholar
Felser, C. 1999. Verbal Complement Clauses: A minimalist study of direct perception constructions. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fintel, K. von 1999. Amount relatives and the meaning of chains. MS. MIT. http://web.mit.edu/fintel/fintel-1999-amount.pdfGoogle Scholar
Fintel, K. von 2000. Whatever. Proceedings of SALT 10. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. 27–39.Google Scholar
Fiorentino, G. 1999. Relativa debole. Sintassi, uso, storia in italiano. Pavia: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Fleischmann, L. 1981. Bine relativization. MS. Summer Institute of Linguistics, Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea. https://www.sil.org/resources/archives/31148Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. & Sag, I. A. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 355–98.Google Scholar
Foley, S. 2013. The syntax of Georgian relative clauses. Honors thesis. New York University. https://bit.ly/2OLCqHRGoogle Scholar
Foley, W. A. 1991. The Yimas Language of New Guinea. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Fontana, J. 1990. Is ASL like Diegueño or Diegueño like ASL? A study of internally headed relative clauses in ASL. In Lucas, C., ed., Sign Language Research. Theoretical Issues. Washington: Gallaudet University Press. 238–55.Google Scholar
Fox, D. 2002. Antecedent contained deletion and the copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 63–96.Google Scholar
Fox, D. & Johnson, K. 2016. QR is restrictor sharing. In Kim, K. M. et al., eds., Proceedings of the 33rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. 1–16.Google Scholar
Fox, D. & Nissenbaum, J. 1999. Extraposition and scope. A case for overt QR. In Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference in Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. 132–44.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Z. 1984. On the origin of Say and Se as complementizers in Black English and English-based creoles. American Speech 59 (3): 207–10.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Z., Johnston, E. with Edwards, A. 2005. A Grammar of Mina. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, M. & Puglielli, A. 2005. A comparative analysis of restrictive and appositive relative clauses in Cushitic languages. In Brugè, L., Giusti, G., Munaro, N., Schweikert, W., & Turano, G., eds., Contributions to the Thirtieth ‘Incontro di Grammatica Generativa’. Venice: Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina. 307–32. http://hdl.handle.net/11707/757Google Scholar
Fuji, M. 2010. On internally headed relative clauses in Japanese and Navajo. Journal of the Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology 6: 47–58. https://bit.ly/2LjOiyMGoogle Scholar
Fukui, N. & Takano, Y. 2000. Nominal structure: An extension of the symmetry principle. In Svenonius, P., ed., The Derivation of VO and OV. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 219–54.Google Scholar
Fulass, H. 1972. On Amharic relative clauses. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Languages 35: 497–513.Google Scholar
Gagnon, M. & Mitrović, I. 2012. More evidence for the split analysis of relative clauses. Actes du congres annuel de l’Association canadienne de linguistique 2012. Proceedings of the 2012 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. https://bit.ly/2DKAusZGoogle Scholar
Gandon, O. 2016. La relativisation dans une perspective areale: L’aire Caucase – Anatolie de l’Est – Iran de l’Ouest. PhD diss. Université de Paris Sorbonne, Paris 3.Google Scholar
Gärtner, H.-M. 2001. Are there V2 relative clauses in German? Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 3 (2): 97–141.Google Scholar
Gärtner, H.-M. 2002. On the force of V2 declaratives. Theoretical Linguistics 28: 33–42.Google Scholar
Genetti, C. 1992. Semantic and grammatical categories of relative clause morphology in the languages of Nepal. Studies in Language 16: 405–27.Google Scholar
Georgi, D. & Salzmann, M. 2014. Case attraction and matching in resumption in relatives. Evidence for top-down derivation. In Assmann, A., Bank, S., Georgi, D., Klein, T., Weisser, P. & Zimmermann, E., eds., Topics at InfL. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 92. Leipzig: Institut für Linguistik, Universität Leipzig. 347–95. https://bit.ly/2DKzzZCGoogle Scholar
Georgi, D. & Salzmann, M. 2017. The matching effect in resumption: A local analysis based on case attraction and top-down derivation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 35: 61–98.Google Scholar
Geraci, C. & Hauser, C. 2017. Amount relatives and head matching: Evidence from French Sign Language. MS. Institut Jean Nicod, Paris.Google Scholar
Gheoghegan, S. G. 1975. Relative clauses in Old, Middle, and New English. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 18. 30–71. https://bit.ly/2rRRDOCGoogle Scholar
Gheorghe, M. 2013. Relative clauses. In Pană-Dindelegan, G., ed., The Grammar of Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 483–97.Google Scholar
Giltner, D. 2017. Head-raising and head-matching in Russian relative clauses: Diagnostics study. Honors thesis. University of Washington.Google Scholar
Girard, G. & Malan, N. 1999. Postmodification by infinitive clauses. Something about which to have a bit of a discussion. Anglophonia: French Journal of English Linguistics. 3 (6): 31–42. https://journals.openedition.org/anglophonia/669Google Scholar
Gisborne, N. & Truswell, R. 2017. Where do relative specifiers come from? In Mathieu, E. & Truswell, R., eds., Micro-change and Macro-change in Diachronic Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Giurgea, I. & Soare, E. 2010a. Modal non-finite relatives in Romance. In Becker, M. G. & Remberger, E. M., eds., Modality and Mood in Romance: Modal interpretation, mood selection, and mood alternation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 57–80.Google Scholar
Giurgea, I. & Soare, E. 2010b. Predication and the nature of non-finite relatives in Romance. In Di Sciullo, A. M. & Hill, V., eds., Edges, Heads, and Projections: Interface properties. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 191–213.Google Scholar
Giusti, G. 2002. The functional structure of noun phrases. A bare phrase structure approach. In Cinque, G., ed., Functional Structure in DP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures. Vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press. 54–90.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1972. Pronoun attraction and subject postposing in Bantu. In Peranteau, P. M., Levi, J. N., & Phares, G. C., eds., The Chicago Which Hunt: Papers from the relative clause festival. 190–7. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1975. Promotion, accessibility and case marking: Toward understanding grammars. Working Papers on Language Universals 19. Stanford University. 55–125.Google Scholar
González Campos, G. & Lehmann, C. Forthcoming. The Cabecar relative clause. MS. University of Erfurt. https://bit.ly/33H6BUUGoogle Scholar
Goodluck, H., Foley, M. & Sedivy, J. 1992. Adjunct islands and acquisition. In Goodluck, H. & Rochemont, M., eds., Island Constraints: Theory, acquisition and processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 181–94.Google Scholar
Gorbet, L. 1973. How to tell a head when you see one: Disambiguation in Diegueño relative clauses. Linguistic Notes from La Jolla 5: 63–82. http://grammar.ucsd.edu/sdlp/past.htmlGoogle Scholar
Gorbet, L. 1977. Headless relative clauses in the Southwest: Are they related? In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 270–8.Google Scholar
Gould, Laurie J. 1988. Liberation and Kikuria relative clauses. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 56–65. https://bit.ly/2Ri5F72Google Scholar
Gračanin-Yüksek, M. 2008. Free relatives in Croatian: An argument for the comp account. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 275–94. https://bit.ly/383Nw2FGoogle Scholar
Gračanin-Yüksek, M. 2010. On a matching effect in headed relative clauses. In Browne, W. et al. eds., Proceedings of FASL 18. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. 193–209. https://bit.ly/2r2W1uiGoogle Scholar
Gračanin-Yüksek, M. 2013. The syntax of relative clauses in Croatian. The Linguistic Review 30: 25–49.Google Scholar
Graczyk, R. 1991. Relative clauses in Crow. In Ingemann, F., ed., 1990 Mid-America Linguistics Conference Papers. Lawrence: University of Kansas. 490–504. https://bit.ly/2rQuvjGGoogle Scholar
Graffi, G. 1980. Su alcune costruzioni ‘pseudo-relative’. Rivista di grammatica generativa 5: 117–39. https://bit.ly/2YcZmD2Google Scholar
Graffi, G. 2017. What are ‘pseudo-relatives’? In D’Alessandro, R., Iannàccaro, G., Passino, D., Thornton, A. M., eds., Di tutti i colori: Studi linguistici per Maria Grossmann. Utrecht: Utrecht University Repository. https://bit.ly/2sIpEBuGoogle Scholar
Gravelle-Karn, G. J. 2010. A grammar of Moskona: An East Bird’s head language of West Papua, Indonesia. PhD diss. Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. https://bit.ly/2OOFwuWGoogle Scholar
Green, G. M. 1973. The derivation of a relative infinitive construction. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 3: 1–32. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/9373Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J., ed., Universals of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 73–113.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, G. 1986. Relativsätze im Deutschen: Die Rattenfängerkonstruktion. Linguistische Berichte 105: 409–34.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, G. 2014. Gaps and parasitic gaps in Bavarian. In Grewendorf, G. & Weiss, H., eds., Bavarian Syntax: Contributions to the theory of syntax. 145–82. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, G. & Poletto, C. 2015. Relative clauses in Cimbrian. In Di Domenico, E., Hamann, C. & Matteini, S., eds., Structures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 393–416.Google Scholar
Griffiths, J. 2015. On appositives. PhD diss. University of Groningen. https://bit.ly/34LzWyJGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, J. & De Vries, M. 2013. The syntactic integration of appositives: Evidence from fragments and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 44: 332–44.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. 1975. Evidence for relativization by deletion in Chaucerian English. In Proceedings of NELS 5. 216–24.Google Scholar
Groat, E. 2012. Headhunting at the edge of the C: A probe-goal analysis for free relative clauses. Paper given at Cologne University, 16 May. https://bit.ly/37XSduVGoogle Scholar
Groos, A. & Riemsdijk, H. van 1981. Matching effects in free relatives: A parameter of core grammar. In Belletti, A. et al., eds., Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore. 171–216.Google Scholar
Gross, M. 1977. Grammaire transformationnelle du français: Syntaxe du nom. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Grosu, A. 1986/87. Pied-piping and the matching parameter. The Linguistic Review 6: 41–58.Google Scholar
Grosu, A. 1996. The proper analysis of ‘missing P’ free relative constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 257–93.Google Scholar
Grosu, A. 2000. Type resolution in relative constructions: Featural marking and dependency encoding. In Alexiadou, A., Meinunger, A. & Wilder, C., eds., The Syntax of Relative Clauses. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 83–120.Google Scholar
Grosu, A. 2001. The semantic diversity of internally-headed relative clauses. In Schaner-Wolles, C. et al., eds., Naturally! Linguistic studies in honour of Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler presented on the occasion of his 60th birthday. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier. 143–52.Google Scholar
Grosu, A. 2002. Strange relative at the interface of two millennia. Glot International 6 (6): 145–67.Google Scholar
Grosu, A. 2003a. ‘Transparent’ free relatives as a special instance of ‘standard’ free relatives. In Coene, M., D’Hulst, Y. & Tasmowski, L., eds., The structure of DPs. Amsterdam: Elsevier North-Holland.Google Scholar
Grosu, A. 2003b. A unified theory of ‘standard’ and ‘transparent’ free relatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 247–331.Google Scholar
Grosu, A. 2004. The syntax-semantics of modal existential wh-constructions. In Tomić, O. M., ed., Balkan Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 405–38.Google Scholar
Grosu, A. 2005. Relative clause constructions and unbounded dependencies. MS. Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
Grosu, A. 2009a. The syntax-semantics of Japanese/Korean internally headed relative clause constructions. Studia Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai, Philologia, LIV 4: 169–91. https://bit.ly/35YTfVrGoogle Scholar
Grosu, A. 2009b. A refined typology of internally-headed relatives. In Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. XI. Bucharest: University of Bucharest Press. https://bit.ly/2Pa0HqfGoogle Scholar
Grosu, A. 2012. Towards a more articulated typology of internally headed relative constructions: The semantic connection. Language and Linguistics Compass 6 (7): 1–30.Google Scholar
Grosu, A. 2013. Relative clause constructions and unbounded dependencies. In Dobrovie-Sorin, C. & Giurgea, I., eds., A Reference Grammar of Romanian, Vol. 1: The Noun Phrase. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 597–662.Google Scholar
Grosu, A. & Hoshi, K. 2016. Japanese internally headed relatives: Their distinctness from potentially homophonous constructions. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1 (1): 32 DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.104Google Scholar
Grosu, A. & Hoshi, K. 2018. On the unified analysis of three types of relative clause construction in Japanese, and on the ‘salient reading’ of the internally headed type. A reply to Erlewine & Gould (2016). Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 34. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.577Google Scholar
Grosu, A., Hoshi, K. & Sohn, D. 2013. The Japanese-Korean connection: A contrastive study of the inventory and properties of their IHRCs. MS. https://bit.ly/2rX6M11Google Scholar
Grosu, A. & Krifka, M. 2005. Relative clause constructions with a post-copular gap. In Coene, M. & Tasmowski, L., eds., On Space and Time in Language. Cluj-Napoca: Clusium. 379–95.Google Scholar
Grosu, A. & Krifka, M. 2007. The gifted mathematician that you claim to be: Equational intensional ‘reconstruction’ relatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 445–85.Google Scholar
Grosu, A. & Landman, F. 1998. Strange relatives of the third kind. Natural Language Semantics 6: 125–70.Google Scholar
Grosu, A. & Landman, F. 2012. A quantificational disclosure approach to Japanese and Korean internally headed relatives. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 21: 159–96.Google Scholar
Grosu, A. & Landman, F 2017. Amount relatives. In Everaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H. C., eds., The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Guasti, M. T. 1988. La pseudorelative et les phénomènes d'accord. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 13: 35–80. https://bit.ly/2LmIRisGoogle Scholar
Guasti, M. T. 1992. Pseudorelatives and Prepositional Infinitives: A unified account. Geneva Generative Papers 1: 53–65.Google Scholar
Guasti, M. T. 1993. Causative and Perception Verbs: A comparative study. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Guéron, J. 1980. On the syntax and semantics of PP extraposition. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 637–78.Google Scholar
Guéron, J. & May, R. 1984. Extraposition and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 1–31.Google Scholar
Guilliot, N. & Malkawi, N. 2007. Reconstruction without movement. In Eguren, L. & Soriano, O. F., eds., Coreference, Modality and Focus. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 113–31.Google Scholar
Guilliot, N. & Malkawi, N. 2011. Weak vs strong resumption: Covarying differently. In Rouveret, A., ed., Resumptive Pronouns at the Interfaces. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 395–423.Google Scholar
Gupta, S. 1986. Discourse Grammar of Hindi: A study in relative clauses. New Delhi: Bahri Publications.Google Scholar
Gupte, S. M. 1975. Relative constructions in Marathi. PhD diss. Michigan State University.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez-Bravo, R. 2013. Free relative clauses in Yucatec Maya. Sprachtypologie und Universalien Forschung 66: 22–39.Google Scholar
Haberland, H. & Auwera, J. van der. 1990. Topics and clitics in Greek relatives. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 22: 127–57.Google Scholar
Hackl, M. & Nissenbaum, J. 2012. A modal ambiguity in for-infinitival relative clauses. Natural Language Semantics 20: 59–81. https://bit.ly/2PagiGkGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L. 1988. Parenthetical adverbials: The radical orphanage approach. In Chiba, S. et al., eds., Aspects of modern English linguistics: Papers presented to Masatomo Ukaji on his 60th Birthday. Tokyo: Kaitakushi. 232–54.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 2010. Locality and the distribution of main clause phenomena. MS. University of Ghent. http://www.gist.ugent.be/file/79Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 2012. Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena, and the Composition of the Left Periphery. The cartography of syntactic structures. Vol. 8. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 2015. A note on English subject contact relatives. In Gallego, Á. J. & Ott, D., eds., 50 Years Later: Reflections on Chomsky’s aspects. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. 133–45. https://bit.ly/33JvfUNGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L., Weir, A., Danckaert, L., D’Hulster, T. & Buelens, L. 2015. Against the root analysis of subject contact relatives in English. Lingua 163: 61–74.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 1985. Der Rattenfängerei muß ein Ende gemacht werden. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 35/36: 27–50.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 1988. Matching projections. In Cardinaletti, A., Cinque, G. & Giusti, G., eds., Constituent Structure: Papers from the 1987 Glow Conference. Dordrecht: Foris. 101–21.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 2000. Adverb placement-convergence of structure and licensing. Theoretical Linguistics 26: 95–134.Google Scholar
Haïk, I. 1985. The syntax of operators. PhD diss. MIT. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/14972Google Scholar
Hale, K. L. 1976. The adjoined relative clause in Australia. In Dixon, R. M. W., ed., Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages. Canberra: AIAS. 78–105.Google Scholar
Hale, K. L. & Platero, P. 1974. Aspects of Navajo anaphora: Relativization and pronominalization. The Navjo Language Review 1: 9–28.Google Scholar
Han, C.-H. & Kim, J.-B. 2004. Are there ‘double relative clauses’ in Korean? Linguistic Inquiry 35: 315–37.Google Scholar
Hanink, E. A. 2016. Internally headed relatives and event nominalizations in Washo. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 119–34.Google Scholar
Hanink, E. A. 2018. Super light-headed relatives, missing prepositions, and span-conditioned allomorphy in German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 21: 247–90.Google Scholar
Hankamer, J. & Mikkelsen, L. H. 2002. A morphological analysis of definite nouns in Danish. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 14 (2): 137–75. https://bit.ly/2OMB6V6Google Scholar
Hankamer, J. & Sag, I. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7: 391–426.Google Scholar
Harbert, W. 1983a. On the nature of the matching parameter. The Linguistic Review 2: 237–84.Google Scholar
Harbert, W. 1983b. A note on Old English free relatives. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 549–53.Google Scholar
Harbert, W. 1989. Case attraction and the hierarchization of case. Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics 6: 138–49.Google Scholar
Harbert, W. 1992. Gothic relative clauses and syntactic theory. In Rauch, I., Carr, G. & Kyes, R., eds., On Germanic Linguistics: Issues and Methods. 109–46. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Harris, A. C. 1994. On the history of relative clauses in Georgian. In Aronson, H. I., ed., Non-Slavic Languages of the USSR: Papers from the fourth conference. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers. 130–42.Google Scholar
Harris, J. A. 2008. On the syntax and semantics of Heim’s ambiguity. In Abner, N. & Bishop, J., eds., Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. 194–202. http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/27/paper1832.pdfGoogle Scholar
Harwood, W. 2013. Being progressive is just a phase: Dividing the functional hierarchy. PhD diss. University of Ghent.Google Scholar
Harwood, W. 2015. Being progressive is just a phase: Celebrating the uniqueness of progressive aspect under a phase-based analysis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33: 523–73.Google Scholar
Harwood, W. 2018. Reduced relatives and extended phases: A phase‐based analysis of the inflectional restrictions on English reduced relative clauses. Studia Linguistica 72: 428–71. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002867Google Scholar
Hasegawa, I. 1998. English infinitival relatives as prepositional phrases. English Linguistics: Journal of the English Linguistics Society of Japan. 15: 1–27. https://bit.ly/2DJ2fBYGoogle Scholar
Hastings, R. E. 2004. The syntax and semantics of relativization and quantification: The case of Quechua. PhD diss. Cornell University. https://bit.ly/34QR71XGoogle Scholar
Hauser, C. & Geraci, C. 2018. Relative clauses in French Sign Language (LSF): Some preliminary results. FEAST 1: 17–26.Google Scholar
Hazout, I. 2001. Predicate formation: The case of participial relatives. The Linguistic Review 18: 97–123.Google Scholar
Heath, J. 2015. Dogon relative clauses. MS. http://dogonlanguages.org/sources/dogonrelativeclausesGoogle Scholar
Heath, J. 2017. A grammar of Najamba (Dogon, Mali). Language Description Heritage Library, University of Michigan. https://bit.ly/2RlZHBNGoogle Scholar
Heck, F. 2005. Gegen Kopfanhebung in deutschen Relativsätzen. Paper given at the GGS 2005, 7 May. University of Tübingen. https://bit.ly/2Lj4FLWGoogle Scholar
Heck, F. & Cuartero, J. 2008. Long distance agreement in relative clauses. In Heck, F., Müller, G. & Trommer, J., eds., Varieties of Competition. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 87. Leipzig: Institut für Linguistik, Universität Leipzig. 13–48. http://home.uni-leipzig.de/heck/papiere/heckcuartero.pdfGoogle Scholar
Heck, F. & Cuartero, J. 2012. Long distance agreement in relative clauses. In Alexiadou, A., Kiss, T. & Müller, G., eds., Local Modelling of Non-Local Dependencies in Syntax. 49–83. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heim, I. 1979. Concealed questions. In Bauerle, R., Egli, U. & von Stechow, A., eds., Semantics from Different Points of View. Berlin: Springer. 51–60.Google Scholar
Heim, I. 1987. Where does the definiteness restriction apply? Evidence from the definiteness of variables. In Reuland, E. J. & ter Meulen, A. G. B., eds., The Representation of (In)definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 21–42.Google Scholar
Heinat, F. & Wiklund, A.-L. 2015. Scandinavian relative clause extractions: Apparent restrictions. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 94: 36–50. https://bit.ly/2Loyo6dGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. & Kuteva, T. 2004. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Henderson, B. 2006a. The syntax and typology of Bantu relative clauses. PhD diss. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Henderson, B. 2006b. The syntax of agreement in Bantu relatives. In Hoyt, F., Seifert, N., Teodorescu, A. & White, J., eds., The Morphosyntax of Underrepresented Languages: Proceedings of the Texas Linguistics Society IX Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. https://stanford.io/2PdyHlyGoogle Scholar
Hendery, R. 2012. Relative Clauses in Time and Space: A case study in the methods of diachronic typology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Henry, A. 1995. Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect variation and parameter setting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Herd, J., Macdonald, C. & Massam, D. 2004. Genitive-relative constructions in Polynesian. In Proceedings of the 2004 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. https://bit.ly/36cOaJBGoogle Scholar
Herd, J., Macdonald, C. & Massam, D. 2011. Genitive subjects in relative constructions in Polynesian languages. Lingua 121: 1252–64.Google Scholar
Herdan, S. 2008a. A superlative theory of amount relatives. In Chang, C. B. & Haynie, H. J., eds., Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. 234–42. http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/26/paper1677.pdfGoogle Scholar
Herdan, S. 2008b. Degrees and amounts in relative clauses. PhD diss. University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Herrmann, T. 2003. Relative clauses in dialects of English: A typological approach. PhD diss. Albert Ludwig University of Freiburg. https://bit.ly/2DMKUrUGoogle Scholar
Hetzron, R. 1978. On the relative order of adjectives. In Seiler, H., ed., Language Universals. Tübingen: Narr. 165–84.Google Scholar
Hewitt, B. G. 1979a. The relative clause in Abkhaz (Abžui dialect). Lingua 47: 151–88.Google Scholar
Hewitt, B. G. 1979b. The relative clause in Adyghe (Temirgoi dialect). Annual of Ibero-Caucasian Linguistics 6: 134–59.Google Scholar
Heycock, C. 2005. On the interaction of adjectival modifiers and relative clauses. Natural Language Semantics 13: 359–82.Google Scholar
Heycock, C. 2012. Specification, equation, and agreement in copular sentences. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 57(2): 209–40.Google Scholar
Heycock, C. 2019. Relative reconstructions: Can we arrive at a unified picture? In Krifka, M. & Schanner, M., eds., Reconstruction Effects in Relative Clauses. Berlin: de Gruyter. 87–112.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J. 1984. English is not a context-free language. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 225–34.Google Scholar
Higgins, F. R. 1974. On the use of idioms as evidence for movement: A cautionary note. MS. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Hill, V. 2017. Restrictive relative clauses in Acadian French. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics XIX (2): 5–27. https://bit.ly/2ON0gD6Google Scholar
Hinterhölzl, R. 2002. Event-related adjuncts and the OV/VO distinction. In Magerdoomian, K. & Bar-el, L. A., eds., Proceedings of the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. 276–89.Google Scholar
Hintikka, J. 1974. Quantifiers vs quantification theory. Linguistic Inquiry 5: 153–77.Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, K. 2003. Relativization in Buli. In Akanlig-Pare, G. & Kenstowicz, M., eds., Studies in Buli Grammar. Working Papers on Endangered and Less Familiar Languages 4. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. 45–84.Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, K. 2005. Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: agreement and clausal architecture. PhD diss. MIT.Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, K. 2008. The head-internal relativization parameter in Gur: D and its typological implications. In Schardl, A., Walkow, M. & Abdurrahman, M., eds., Proceedings of NELS 38, Vol. 1. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 371–84.Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, K. 2009. A note on the typology of head-internal relativization. In Austin, P. K., Bond, O., Charette, M., Nathan, D. & Sells, P., eds., Proceedings of Conference on Language Documentation and Linguistic Theory 2. London: SOAS.Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, K. 2017. Internally headed relative clauses. In Everaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H., eds., The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom028Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, K., Akanlig-Pare, G., Atintono, S., Bodomo, A., Essizewa, K. & Hudu, F. 2017. A comparative syntax of internally-headed relative clauses in Gur. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2 (1): 27. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.40Google Scholar
Hirsch, A. 2016. A compositional semantics for wh-ever free relatives. In Bade, N., Berezovskaya, P. & Schöller, A., eds., Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 20. 341–58. https://bit.ly/2P9gCoCGoogle Scholar
Hirschbühler, P. 1978. The syntax and semantics of wh-constructions. PhD diss. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Hirschbühler, P. 1992. Observations sur les propositions relatives. In Tasmowski, L. & Zribi-Hertz, A., eds., Hommages à Nicolas Ruwet. Ghent: Communication & Cognition. 284–99.Google Scholar
Hirschbühler, P. & Rivero, M.-L. 1983. Remarks on free relatives and matching phenomena. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 505–20.Google Scholar
Hladnik, M. 2013. Recoverability in Slovene relative clauses. In Rhys, C. S., Iosad, P. & Henry, A., eds., Minority Languages, Microvariation, Minimalism and Meaning: Proceedings of the Irish network in formal linguistics. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 171–85.Google Scholar
Hladnik, M. 2015. Mind the gap: Resumption in Slavic relative clauses. PhD diss. University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Hodgson, K. 2018. Word order, information structure and relativization strategies in Eastern Armenian. Paper presented at the International Workshop OV-IS 2018: OV basic word order correlates and information structure. 6–7 December. INALCO, Paris.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, J. 1986. An account of relative clauses with split antecedents. In Dalrymple, M., Goldberg, J., Hanson, K., et al., eds., Proceedings of the 5th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 68–86.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, J. 2002. Relativisation in Frisian. In Poussa, P., ed., Relativisation on the North Sea Littoral. 63–76. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Holler, A. 2003. An HPSG analysis of non-integrated wh-relative clauses in German. Proceedings of the HPSG03 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 163–80. https://stanford.io/384grUcGoogle Scholar
Holler, A. 2005. Weiterführende Relativsätze: Empirische und theoretische Aspekte. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Hook, P. E. & Koul, O. N. 1996. Kashmiri as a V-2 language. In Swarajya Lakshmi, V. & Mukherjee, A., eds., Word Order in Indian Languages. Hyderabad: Booklinks. 95–105.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. 1994. An argument for Minimalism: The case of antecedent-contained deletion. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 455–80.Google Scholar
Horvath, J. 2017. Pied-piping. In Everaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H., eds., The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. 569–630. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom064Google Scholar
Houston, J. R. 1974. Dari Relative Clauses. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 4(1): 32–58.Google Scholar
Hsiao, F. P.-F. 2003. The syntax and processing of relative clauses in Mandarin Chinese. PhD diss. MIT. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/7990Google Scholar
Hsieh, M.-L. 2002.Tense as a grammatical category in Chinese. In Tang, S.-W. & Liu, C.-S., eds., On the Formal Way to Chinese Languages. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 3–20.Google Scholar
Hsu, Y.-Y. 2017. Alternatives and focus: Distribution of Chinese relative clauses revisited. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 23: 73–82. https://bit.ly/2sKnkd7Google Scholar
Hu, S., Cecchetto, C. & Guasti, M. T. 2018. A new case for structural intervention: Evidence from Wenzhounese relative clauses. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 27 (3): 247–73.Google Scholar
Hu, S., Gavarró, A. & Guasti, M. T. 2016. Children’s production of head-final relative clauses: The case of Mandarin. Applied Psycholinguistics 37 (2): 323–46.Google Scholar
Huang, C. 2008. Relativization in Qiang. Language and Linguistics 9 (4): 735–68. https://bit.ly/2OO977FGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. PhD diss. MIT.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. 2016. The syntax and semantics of prenominals: Construction or composition? Language and Linguistics 17(4): 431–75. https://bit.ly/2Lp1hznGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J., Li, Y.-H. A. & Li, Y. 2009. The Syntax of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hucklebridge, S. 2016. Head-internal relative clauses in Tłı̜cho̜ Yatıì. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 36 . https://bit.ly/33MhB3vGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R. 1971. The sentence in written English: A syntactic study based on an analysis of scientific texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. 1984. Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huhmarniemi, S. & Brattico, P. 2013. The structure of Finnish relative clause. Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics 2 (1): 53–88. https://bit.ly/2YhaFdvGoogle Scholar
Hull, G. & Eccles, L. (2001) Tetum Reference Grammar. Winston Hills, NSW: Sebastião Aparício da Silva Project.Google Scholar
Hulsey, S. & Sauerland, U. 2006. Sorting out relative clauses. Natural Language Semantics 14(2): 111–37.Google Scholar
Huot, H. 1978. Appositions et relatives appositives. Recherches Linguistiques 5–6: 103–42.Google Scholar
Huot, H. 1981. Constructions infinitives du français: Le subordonnant de. L’information grammaticale 15: 40–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/igram.1982.2342Google Scholar
Huttar, G. L., Aboh, E. O. & Ameka, F. K. 2013. Relative clauses in Suriname creoles and Gbe languages. Lingua 129: 96–123.Google Scholar
Iatridou, S. 2013. Looking for free relatives in Turkish (and the unexpected places this leads to). In Özge, U., ed., Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL8). Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. 129–52.Google Scholar
Iatridou, S., Anagnostopoulou, E. & Izvorski, R. 2001. Observations about the form and meaning of the perfect. In Kenstowicz, M., ed., Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 189–238.Google Scholar
Inada, S. 2008. Unexpected narrow scope and reconstruction into relative clause. Linguistic Research 24: 1–11.Google Scholar
Inada, S. 2009. On the ‘amount’ relativization and its relatives. Linguistic Research 25: 85–102.Google Scholar
Isac, D. 2001. Restrictive relative clauses as conjuncts. In Andronis, M., Ball, C., Elston, H. & Neuvel, S., eds., Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Vol. 1. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 243–57.Google Scholar
Isac, D. 2003. Restrictive relative clauses vs restrictive adjectives: An asymmetry within the class of modifiers. In Di Sciullo, A. M., ed., Asymmetry in Grammar. Vol. 1: Syntax and semantics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 27–49.Google Scholar
Ishihara, R. 1984. Clausal pied-piping: A problem for GB. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2: 397–418.Google Scholar
Ishizuka, T. 2008a. Deriving the order of constituents inside the Javanese DP. MS. UCLA. http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000769Google Scholar
Ishizuka, T. 2008b. Restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses in Japanese: Antisymmetric approach. MS. Department of Linguistics, UCLA. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000808Google Scholar
Itô, J. & Mester, A. 2000. ‘Ich, der ich sechzig bin’: An agreement puzzle. Jorge Hankamer Webfest. UC Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Izvorski, R. 1996. The syntax and semantics of correlative proforms. In Proceedings of NELS 26. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 133–47.Google Scholar
Izvorski, R. Pancheva, . 1998. Non-indicative wh-complements of existential/possessive predicates. In Proceedings of NELS 28. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 159–73.Google Scholar
Izvorski, R. Pancheva, . 2000. Free adjunct free relatives. In Billerey, R. & Lillehaugen, D., eds., Proceedings of the Nineteenth West Coast Conference of Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. 232–45.Google 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
Jacobson, P. 1995. On the quantificational force of English free relatives. In Bach, E., Jelinek, E., Kratzer, A., Partee, B. B. H., eds., Quantification in Natural Languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 451–86.Google Scholar
Jacobson, P. 1998. Antecedent contained deletion and pied-piping: Evidence for a variable-free semantics. In Proceedings of SALT 8. 74–91. https://bit.ly/2LmgX6sGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, P. 2002. Direct compositionality and variable-free semantics: The case of binding into heads. In Proceedings of SALT 12: 144–63. https://bit.ly/2DLU3kvGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, P. 2019. Deconstructing reconstruction. In Krifka, M. & Schenner, M., eds., Reconstruction Effects in Relative Clauses. Berlin: de Gruyter. 303–55.Google Scholar
Jacques, G. 2016. Subjects, objects and relativization in Japhug. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 44: 1–28.Google Scholar
Janse, M. 1999. Greek, Turkish, and Cappadocian relatives revis(it)ed. In Moser, A., ed., Greek Linguistics: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Greek linguistics. Athens: Ellinika Grammata. 453–62.Google Scholar
Jayaseelan, K. A. 2001. IP-internal topic and focus phrases. Studia Linguistica 55: 39–75.Google Scholar
Jeng, H.-H. 1977. Topic and focus in Bunun. Academia Sinica, Taipei. Special publication No. 72.Google Scholar
Jenks, P., Makasso, E.-M. & Hyman, L. 2017. Accessibility and demonstrative operators in Basaá relative clauses. In Atindogbé, G. G. & Grollemund, R., eds., Relative clauses in Cameroonian languages: Structure, function and semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 17–46.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1949. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles: Part III. Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard and London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Jo, M.-J. 2002. The structure of relative clauses in Korean. Studies in Generative Grammar 12: 107–37.Google Scholar
Johansson, S. 2011. Towards a typology of Algonquian relative clauses. In Workshop on the Structure and Constituency of Languages of the Americas (WSCLA) 16. 92–104. https://bit.ly/2Pg0Bx9Google Scholar
Johnson, G. 2015. The morphosyntax of whatever in free relatives: Variation and optionality in Appalachian English. Handout of LSA talk. MS. Graduate Center, CUNY. https://bit.ly/2PgiADzGoogle Scholar
Jónsson, J. G. 2017. Why sem is (still) a complementizer and not a relative pronoun. In LaCara, N., Moulton, K. & Tessier, A.-M.. A Schrift to Fest Kyle Johnson. Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 169–75. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/linguist_oapubs/1/Google Scholar
Joseph, B. 1980. Recovery of information in relative clauses: Evidence from Greek and Hebrew. Journal of Linguistics 16: 237–44.Google Scholar
Julien, M. 2002. Syntactic Heads and Word Formation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jung, Y. 1995. Internally headed relative clauses in Korean. In Kuno, S., ed., Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics VI: Proceedings of the 1995 Harvard International Symposium on Korean Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: Department of Linguistics, Harvard University. 235–48.Google Scholar
Junghare, I. Y. 1973. Restrictive relative clauses in Marathi. Indian Linguistics 34(4): 251–62.Google Scholar
Kagan, O. & Pereltsvaig, A. 2012. Motivating the DP projection in languages without articles. In Cohen, E., ed., Proceedings of Israeli Association for Theoretical Linguistics (IATL). Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. 167–78.Google Scholar
Kalivoda, N. & Zyman, E. 2015. On the derivation of relative clauses in Teotitlán del Valle Zapotec. In Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 219–43. https://doi.org/10.20354/B4414110016Google Scholar
Kallulli, D. 2000. Restrictive relative clauses revisited. In Proceedings of NELS 30. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 353–62.Google Scholar
Kallulli, D. 2008. Resumption, relativization, null objects and information structure. In Hartmann, J. M., Hegedűs, V., & van Riemsdijk, H., eds., Sounds of Silence: Empty elements in syntax and phonology. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 235–64.Google Scholar
Kallulli, D. 2014. Observations on relative clauses in Bavarian. In Grewendorf, G. & Weiss, H., eds., Bavarian Syntax: Contributions to the theory of syntax. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 183–200.Google Scholar
Kallulli, D. 2018. ‘Relative pronouns’ as agreeing complementizers: German welch-. Forthcoming in Frana, I., Menéndez-Benito, P. & Bhatt, R., eds., Making Worlds Accessible: A Festschrift for Angelika Kratzer. University of Massachusetts Amherst: Scholarworks.Google Scholar
Kameshima, N. 1989. The syntax of restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses in Japanese. PhD diss. University of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
Kamio, A. 1977. Restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses in Japanese. Descriptive and Applied Linguistics 10: 147–68.Google Scholar
Kapeliuk, O. 2002. The relative verb in Amharic in an areal perspective. Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere 71: 33–54.Google Scholar
Karlsson, F. & Sullivan, K. P. H. 2002. The use of relativization in the regional dialect of Swedish spoken in Burträsk. In Poussa, P., ed., Relativisation on the North Sea Littoral. Munich: Lincom Europa. 97–107.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 1972. Subject inversion in French interrogatives. In Casagrande, J. & Saciuk, B., eds., Studies in Romance Languages. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 70–126.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 1976. French relative clauses. In Luján, M. & Hensey, F. (eds.), Current Studies in Romance Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 255–99.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 1980. Extensions of binding and case-marking. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 55–91.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 1981a. Binding, quantifiers, clitics and control. In Heny, F., ed., Binding and Filtering. London: Croom Helm 191–211.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 1983b. Chains, categories external to S, and French complex inversion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 107–39.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 2000. A note on prepositions, complementizers and word order universals. In Parameters and Universals. New York: Oxford University Press. 314–26.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 2002. On some prepositions that look DP-internal: English of and French de. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 1: 71–115.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 2004a. Here and there. In Leclère, C., Laporte, E., Piot, M. & Silberztein, M., eds., Syntax, Lexis and Lexicon-Grammar: Papers in honour of Maurice Gross. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 253–73.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 2004b. Prepositions as probes. In Belletti, A., ed., Structures and Beyond. New York: Oxford University Press. 192–212.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 2005a. Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference to English and French. In Cinque, G. & Kayne, R., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax. New York: Oxford University Press. 3–69.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 2007a. Some thoughts on grammaticalization: The case of that. Paper presented at the XVIIIe Conférence internationale de linguistique historique. Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM).Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 2007b. On the syntax of quantity in English. In Bayer, J., Bhattacharya, T. & Babu, M. T. H., eds., Linguistic Theory and South Asian Languages: Essays in honour of K. A. Jayaseelan. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 73–105.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 2008a. Some preliminary comparative remarks on French and Italian articles. In Freidin, R., Otero, C., Zubizarreta, M. L., eds., Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 291–321.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 2008b. Antisymmetry and the lexicon. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 8: 1–31.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 2010b. More on relative pronouns. Handout of a paper given at the workshop Adjectives and Relative Clauses: Syntax and Semantics, Ca’ Foscari University, Venice. 16 June.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 2014a. Why isn’t this a complementizer? In Svenonius, P., ed., Functional Structure from Top to Toe. The cartography of syntactic structures. Vol. 9. New York: Oxford University Press. 188–231.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 2014b. English for as a wh-phrase. Handout of a talk given at the workshop Variation in C, Università di Ca’Foscari, Venice. 22 October.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 2015b. English one and ones as complex determiners. MS. NYU. https://bit.ly/2PawjvOGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 2016b. Comparative syntax and English is to. Linguistic Analysis 39 (1–2): 35–82.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 2017a. Clitic doubling, person and agreement in French hyper-complex inversion. MS. New York University.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 2017b. A note on some even more unusual relative clauses. In Bailey, L. R. & Sheehan, M., eds., Order and Structure in Syntax I: Word order and syntactic structure. Berlin: Language Science Press. 363–71.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 2017c. English for as a wh-phrase. Handout of a talk given at the University of Frankfurt, 5 May.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. 2018. The place of linear order in the language faculty. Handout of a talk at Università di Ca’ Foscari, Venice. 16 January. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003820Google Scholar
Keenan, E. 1985. Relative clauses. In Shopen, T., ed., Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol. II. Complex Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 141–70.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. & Comrie, B. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63–99.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. & Comrie, B. 1979. Data on the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy. Language 55: 333–51.Google Scholar
Kemp, W. 1981. Headless relatives and reduced relatives in Quebec French, Rumanian, and Spanish. In Cressey, W. W. & Napoli, D. J., eds., Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 248–64.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. 2003. Non-restrictive relatives and growth of logical form. In Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 22: 301–14.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. 1997. Antecedent-contained deletion and the syntax of quantification. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 662–88.Google Scholar
Keyser, S. J. 1975. A partial history of the relative clause in English. In Grimshaw, J., ed., Papers in the History and Structure of English. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 1. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts. 1–33.Google Scholar
Kholodilova, M. 2013. Inverse attraction in Ingrian Finnish. Linguistica Uralica XLIX (2): 96–116. DOI: 10.3176/lu.2013.2.02Google Scholar
Kholodilova, M. 2017. Competition between ‘who’ and ‘which’ in Slavic light-headed relative clauses. Slověne. International Journal of Slavic Studies 6 (1): 118–47. https://bit.ly/2s0H7o9Google Scholar
Kholodilova, M. & Privizentseva, M. 2015. Inverse attraction in Finno-Ugric languages. Paper given at the workshop ‘Insufficient strength to defend its case’: Case attraction and related phenomena. Wrocław, 18–19 September. https://bit.ly/2YoLSnNGoogle Scholar
Kim, J.-R. 1993. Restriction and apposition. Language Research. 29 (2): 189–99. https://bit.ly/2s084ZuGoogle Scholar
Kim, M.-J. 2007. Formal linking in internally headed relatives. Natural Language Semantics 15: 279–315.Google Scholar
Kim, Y.-K. 1997. Agreement phrases in DP. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 9: 281–302.Google Scholar
Kitagawa, C. 2005. Typological variations of head-internal relatives in Japanese. Lingua 115: 1243–76.Google Scholar
Kitagawa, C. 2019. The pro-head analysis of the Japanese internally-headed relative clause. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4 (1): 62. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.857Google Scholar
Kluender, R. 1992. Deriving island constraints from principles of predication. In Goodluck, H. & Rochemont, M., eds., Island Constraints: Theory, acquisition and processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 223–58.Google Scholar
Knowles, J. 1990. Free relatives. A modified COMP analysis. MS. Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
Koch, K. 2005. German prenominal modifiers. In Junker, M.-O., McGinnis, M. & Roberge, Y., eds., Proceedings of the 2004 Annual Meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association. https://bit.ly/363BrZuGoogle Scholar
Kojima, Y. 2005. Two types of relative clauses in Modern Georgian. In Vamling, K., ed., Language, History and Cultural Identities in the Caucasus. Papers from the conference, 17–19 June, Malmö University. Malmö: Malmö University Press. 156–67. https://bit.ly/2YqAx6QGoogle Scholar
Kojima, Y. 2014. The position of rom and the pragmatics of subordinate clauses in Georgian. In Amiridze, N., Reseck, T. & Topdze Gäumann, M., eds., Advances in Kartvelian Morphology and Syntax. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer. 141–53.Google Scholar
Komen, E. R. 2007. The relative clause in Chechen. Abstract of a paper presented at the Conference of the Languages of the Caucasus, 7–9 December, Department of Linguistics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. https://bit.ly/34TzGh8Google Scholar
Koopman, H. 1983. Control from COMP and comparative syntax. The Linguistic Review 2: 365–91.Google Scholar
Koopman, H. 2000. The Spec head configuration. In The Syntax of Specifiers and Heads: Collected essays of Hilda J. Koopman. London: Routledge. 331–65.Google Scholar
Koopman, H. & Sportiche, D. 2014. The que/qui Alternation: New analytical directions. In Svenonius, P., ed., Functional Structure from Top to Toe. The cartography of syntactic structures. Vol. 9. New York: Oxford University Press. 46–96.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J. 1985. Infinitival Relative Clauses and Complementation in Turkish. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 221–35.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J. 2005a. Agreement and its placement in Turkic nonsubject relative clauses. In Cinque, G. & Kayne, R. S., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax. New York: Oxford University Press. 513–41.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J. 2005b. Free relatives as light-headed relatives in Turkish. In Broekhuis, H., Corver, N., Huybregts, R., Kleinhenz, U. & Koster, J., eds., Organizing Grammar: Studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 340–9.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J. 2011. Non-restrictive pre-nominal relative clauses in a head-final language. In Erguvanlı Taylan, E. & Rona, B., eds., Puzzles of Language: Essays in Honour of Karl Zimmer. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 93–102.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J. 2014. Free adjuncts and non-free relatives in Turkish. In Arslan Kechriotis, C., Akar, D., Kelepir, M., Öztürk, B., eds., Dilbilim Araştırmaları. Special issue. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Publications. 117–29.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J. 2015. Two types of free relatives in Turkish in disguise: One is headed, the other a correlative. In Zeyrek, D., Sağın Şimşek, Ç., Ataş, U. & Rehbein, J., eds., Ankara Papers in Turkish and Turkic Linguistics. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 132–50.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J. 2018. Turkish complex nominal phrase constructions. In Guillemot, C., Yoshida, T. & Lee, S. J., eds., Proceedings of the 13th Workshop of Altaic Formal Linguistics. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 88. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. 17–33.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J. & Vinokurova, N. 2017. Turkish and Turkic complex noun phrase constructions. In Matsumoto, Y., Comrie, B. & Sells, P., eds. Noun-modifying clause constructions in languages of Eurasia: Rethinking theoretical and geographical boundaries. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 251–92.Google Scholar
Koster, J. 1986. Domains and Dynasties: The radical autonomy of syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Koster, J. 2015. Relative Clauses: Parallelism and partial reconstruction. In van Oostendorp, M. & van Riemsdijk, H., eds., Representing Structure in Phonology and Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 115–40.Google Scholar
Koster-Moeller, J. 2012. Internal DP heads in restrictive relative clauses. In Proceedings of ConSOLE XVII: 209–30.Google Scholar
Koster-Moeller, J. & Hackl, M. 2008. Quantifier scope constraints in ACD: Implications for the syntax of relative clauses. In Abner, N. & Bishop, J., eds., Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. 301–09. http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/27/paper1844.pdfGoogle Scholar
Kotek, H. & Erlewine, M. Y. 2015a. Non-interrogative wh-constructions in Chuj. In Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages of the Americas (WSCLA) 21. 1–3 April 2016, Université du Québec à Montréal.Google Scholar
Kotek, H. & Erlewine, M. Y. 2015b. Relative pronoun pied-piping in English non-restrictive relatives. MS. McGill University and National University of Singapore.Google Scholar
Kotek, H. & Erlewine, M. Y. 2015c. Intervention effects in relative pronoun pied-piping: experimental evidence. In Bade, N., Berezovskaya, P. & Schöller, A., eds., Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 20.Google Scholar
Kotek, H. & Erlewine, M. Y. 2016. Unifying definite and indefinite free relatives: Evidence from Mayan. Proceedings of NELS 46, Vol. 2. Amherst, MA: GSLA. 241–54.Google Scholar
Koul, O. N. 2003. Kashmiri. In Cardona, G. & Jain, D., eds., The Indo-Aryan Languages. London: Routledge. 895–952.Google Scholar
Kotzoglou, G. & Varlokosta, S. 2005. Clitics in Greek restrictive relatives: An integrated approach. Reading Working Papers in Linguistics 8. 27–49.Google Scholar
Krapova, I. 2010. Bulgarian relative and factive clauses with an invariant complementizer. Lingua 120: 1240–72.Google Scholar
Krapova, I. & Cinque, G. 2016. On noun clausal ‘complements’ and their non-unitary nature. Annali di Ca’ Foscari. Serie occidentale. 50: 77–107. http://doi.org/10.14277/2499-1562/AnnOc-50-16-4Google Scholar
Krause, C. 2001b. On pre-relatives and appositives. Proceedings of the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. 332–45.Google Scholar
Krifka, M. 2011. Reconstruction effects in relative clauses. Handout of a paper given at the workshop ‘An explanation of condition C effects under apparent reconstruction’, Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS), Berlin, 8–9 July. https://bit.ly/2qjLomeGoogle Scholar
Krifka, M. & Schanner, M. 2019. Reconstruction Effects in Relative Clauses. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. 1981. On the role of resumptive pronouns in amnestying island constraint violations. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 125–35. https://bit.ly/3671U8xGoogle Scholar
Kroeger, Paul. 2005. Analyzing Grammar: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kroeker, M. 2001. A descriptive grammar of Nambikuara. International Journal of American Linguistics 67: 1–87.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. 1976. Subject, theme, and the speaker’s empathy: A re-examination of relativization phenomena. In Li, C., ed., Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press. 417–44.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1968. English relativization and certain related problems. Language 44: 244–66.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1976. Headless relative clauses in modern Japanese and the relevancy condition. In Proceedings of the Second Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 269–79.Google Scholar
Kush, D., Omaki, A. & Hornstein, N. 2009. Reanalysing relative clause island effects. Paper presented at 32nd GLOW, Nantes.Google Scholar
Kush, D., Omaki, A. & Hornstein, N. 2013. Microvariation in islands? In Sprouse, J. & Hornstein, N., eds., Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 239–64.Google Scholar
Kuteva, T. & Comrie, B. 2006. The typology of relative clause formation in African Languages. In Voeltz, F. K. E., ed., Studies in African Linguistic Typology. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 209–28.Google Scholar
Kvam, S. 1983. Linksverschachtelung im Deutschen und Norwegischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Kwon, N., Polinsky, M. & Kluender, R. 2006. Subject preference in Korean. In Baumer, D., Montero, D., & Scanlon, M., eds., Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. 1–14. http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/25/paper1429.pdfGoogle Scholar
Labelle, M. 1996. The acquisition of relative clauses: Movement or no movement? Language Acquisition 5: 65–82. https://bit.ly/2RpqCNgGoogle Scholar
Lacroix, R. 2009. Description du dialecte laze d’Arhavi (caucasique du sud, Turquie): Grammaire et textes. PhD diss. Université Lumière Lyon 2. https://bit.ly/2DQ8UKJGoogle Scholar
Lacroix, R. 2012. The multi-purpose subordinator na in Laz. In Gast, V. & Diessel, H., eds., Clause Linkage in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Data driven approaches to cross-clausal syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 77–103.Google Scholar
Lakshmi Bai, B. 1985. Some notes on correlative constructions in Dravidian. In Acson, V. Z. & Leed, R. L., eds., For Gordon H. Fairbanks. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawai‘i. 181–90.Google Scholar
Lamberti, M. & Sottile, R. 1997. The Wolaytta Language. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 1988. There was a farmer had a dog: Syntactic amalgams revisited. In Axmaker, S., Jaisser, A. & Singmaster, H., eds., Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 319–39. https://bit.ly/2Pe8x28Google Scholar
Lander, Y. 2006. Multiple relativization in Adyghe. Paper given at the workshop ‘Morphosyntaxe des langues du Caucase’, INALCO, 13 December. CNRS, Paris. https://bit.ly/2qk1xYSGoogle Scholar
Lander, Y. 2010. Relativization in Shapsug Adyghe. Rice Working Papers in Linguistics 2: 75–91. https://bit.ly/354GxEwGoogle Scholar
Lander, Y. & Kozhukhar, A. 2015. Successfully looking for syntax in Mehweb Dargwa relative clause constructions. Basic research program working papers of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow. http://bit.ly/31QnRYIGoogle Scholar
Larson, R. 1987. ‘Missing prepositions’ and the analysis of English free relative clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 39–266.Google Scholar
Larson, R. 1998. Free relative clauses and missing Ps: Reply to Grosu. MS. Stony Brook, State University of New York.Google Scholar
Larson, R. 2016. Warlpiri adjoined clauses. Workshop on the internal and external syntax of adverbial clauses. Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS), Berlin, 23 July.Google Scholar
Larson, R. & LaTerza, I. 2017. Revisiting article-S. Revista Linguística 13(2): 51–87. https://bit.ly/366yJ5rGoogle Scholar
Larson, R. & May, R. 1990. Antecedent containment or vacuous movement: Reply to Baltin. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 103–22.Google Scholar
Larson, R. & Takahashi, N. 2007. Order and interpretation in prenominal relative clauses. In Kelepir, M. & Öztürk, B., eds., Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 2). MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 54. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. 101–120.Google Scholar
Lassiter, D. 2011. Anaphoric properties of which and the syntax of appositive relatives. NYU Working Papers in Linguistics (NYUWPL) 3: 69–94. https://bit.ly/33XOFWoGoogle Scholar
Law, P. 2001. Some issues in English and Chinese relative clauses. Handout for the Study Group on Relative Clauses, Hong Kong Polytechnic University. 29 September.Google Scholar
Lee, F. 2001. Relative clauses without wh-movement. In Kim, M.-J. & Strauss, U., eds., Proceedings of NELS 31. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 321–31.Google Scholar
Lee-Goldman, R. 2012. Supplemental relative clauses: Internal and external syntax. Journal of Linguistics 48: 573–608.Google Scholar
Lees, R. B. 1961. The constituent structure of noun phrases. American Speech 36: 159–68.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, C. & Fournier, R. 1978. Le relatives en français de Montréal. In Syntaxe et sémantique du français. Montreal: Les Presses de l’Université du Québec. 273–94.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. 1984. Der Relativsatz: Typologie seiner Strukturen, Theorie seiner Funktionen, Kompendium seiner Grammatik. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Łęska, P. 2016. Agreement under case matching in Polish co and który relative clauses headed by numerically quantified nouns. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 24: 113–36.Google Scholar
Leu, T. 2008. The internal syntax of determiners. PhD diss. NYU. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000745Google Scholar
Leung, T. T.-C. 2007a. Syntactic derivation and the theory of matching contextual features. PhD diss. University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Leung, T. T.-C. 2007b. Correlatives and the conditions on chain formation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Linguistics in Korea (ICLK 2007). Seoul: Seoul National University, KGGC.Google Scholar
Leung, T. T.-C. 2007c. On the typology of correlative constructions. Handout of a paper presented at the conference of the Association of Linguistic Typology (ALT VII) CNRS, Paris, 28 September.Google Scholar
Leung, T. T.-C. 2009. Wh-phrasal movement and adjunction analysis of free relatives. In Mohanty, R. & Menon, M., eds., Universals and Variation. 161–80. Hyderabad: The English and Foreign Languages University Press.Google Scholar
Li, C. N. & Thompson, S. A. 1978. Relativization strategies in Wappo. Proceedings of BLS 4: 106–13.Google Scholar
Li, C. N. & Thompson, S. A. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Li, Y.-H. A. 2001a. Universal constructions? Relativization in English and Chinese. Concentric: Studies in English Literature and Linguistics 27(2): 163–87. https://bit.ly/2DOWbs0Google Scholar
Li, Y.-H. A. 2001b. Head-final relatives in one family? A comparative study of relativization in Chinese and Japanese. Paper presented at IACL-10/NACCL-13 joint meeting at Irvine, California.Google Scholar
Li, Y.-H. A. 2002. Word order, structure, and relativization. In Tang, S.-W. & Liu, C.-S. L., eds., On the Formal Way to Chinese Languages. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 45–73.Google Scholar
Lin, J.-W. 2004. On restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses in Mandarin Chinese. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 33(1): 199–240.Google Scholar
Lin, J.-W. 2008. The order of stage-level and individual-level relatives and superiority effects. Language and Linguistics, 9 (4): 839–64. https://bit.ly/2DUnhO5Google Scholar
Lin, J.-W. & Tsai, W.-T. D. 2015. Restricting non-restrictive relatives in Mandarin Chinese. In Li, A., Simpson, A. & Tsai, W.-T. D., eds., Chinese Syntax in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. 100–27.Google Scholar
Lindahl, F. 2017. Extraction from relative clauses in Swedish. PhD diss. University of Gothenburg. https://bit.ly/389ytEFGoogle Scholar
Link, G. 1984. Hydras: On the logic of relative constructions with multiple heads. In Landman, F. & Veltman, F., eds., Varieties of Formal Semantics. Dordrecht: Foris. 245–57.Google Scholar
Lipták, A. 2004. Adjunct scope marking: New arguments for Dayal’s approach. In Moulton, K. & Wolf, M., eds., Proceedings of NELS 34. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 405–23.Google Scholar
Lipták, A. 2009a. The landscape of correlatives: An empirical and analytical survey. In Lipták, A., ed., Correlatives Cross-Linguistically. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1–46.Google Scholar
Lipták, A. 2015. Relative pronouns as sluicing remnants. In Kiss, K. É., Surányi, B. & Dékány, É., eds., Approaches to Hungarian, Vol. 14. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 187–207.Google Scholar
Lipták, A. & Aboh, E. O. 2013. Sluicing inside relatives: The case of Gungbe. In Aalberse, S. & Auer, A., eds., Linguistics in the Netherlands 2013. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 102–18.Google Scholar
Loccioni, N. 2017. Comparative superlatives in relative clauses. Handout of a talk at a syntax/semantics seminar at UCLA.Google Scholar
Longenbaugh, N. 2019. Agreement mismatch in partitive relatives. Linguistic Inquiry 50: 847–61.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
Loss, S. S. 2017. Two types of subordinate subject contact relatives. Snippets 31: 15–16.Google Scholar
Loughnane, R. 2009. A Grammar of Oksapmin. PhD diss. University of Melbourne. http://repository.unimelb.edu.au/10187/4788Google Scholar
Lu, B. 1990. The structure of Chinese nominal phrases. In Saito, M., ed., Comparative Studies on the Structure of Noun Phrases. Storrs, CT: Department of Linguistics, University of Connecticut. 1–41.Google Scholar
Lu, B. 1998. Left-right asymmetries of word order variation: A functional explanation. PhD diss. University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Lüpke, F. 2005. A grammar of Jalonke argument structure. PhD diss. Radboud University, Nijmegen. http://repository.ubn.ru.nl/handle/2066/19598Google Scholar
Mahajan, A. 2000. Relative Asymmetries and Hindi Correlatives. In Alexiadou, A., Law, P., Meinunger, A., Wilder, C., eds., The Syntax of Relative Clauses. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 201–29.Google Scholar
Maiden, M. & Robustelli, C. 2013. A Reference Grammar of Modern Italian. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Maling, J. 1977. A nonrecoverable deletion. In Fox, S. E., Beach, W. A. & Philosoph, S., eds., CLS Book of Squibs. 66–67. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. http://people.brandeis.edu/~maling/Maling1977.pdfGoogle Scholar
Maling, J. 1978. The complementizer in Middle English appositives. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 719–25.Google Scholar
Maling, J. & Zaenen, A. 1982. A phrase structure account of Scandinavian extraction phenomena. In Jacobson, P. & Pullum, G. K., eds., The Nature of Syntactic Representation. Dordrecht: Reidel. 229–82.Google Scholar
Mallinson, G. & Blake, B. J. 1981. Language Typology: Cross-linguistic studies in syntax. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Manninen, S. 2002. Extraposition and restrictive relative clauses. Working Papers of the Department of English in Lund 2. https://bit.ly/34XyZ6LGoogle Scholar
Manninen, S. 2003. To raise or not to raise: The case of Finnish restrictive relative clauses. Nordlyd 31 (4): 668–93.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. R. 2010. The structure and interpretation of (Romance) complementizers. In Panagiotidis, E. P., ed., The Complementizer Phase: Subjects and operators. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 167–99.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. R. 2012. The status of complementizers in the left periphery. In Aelbrecht, L., Haegeman, L. & Nye, R., eds., Main Clause Phenomena: New horizons. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 297–318.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. R. & Savoia, L. 2003. The nature of complementizers. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 28: 87–110. https://bit.ly/33W4cWHGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. R. & Savoia, L. 2011. Grammatical Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marvin, T. 2002. Past participles in reduced relatives. In van Koppen, M., Thrift, E., van der Torre, E. J. & Zimmermann, M., eds., Proceedings of ConSOLE IX. 141–56.Google Scholar
Marvin, T. 2003. Past participles in reduced relatives: A cross-linguistic perspective. Linguistica 43: 141–60.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. 1990. Role of pragmatics in Japanese relative clauses. Lingua 82: 111–29.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. 1997. Noun-Modifying Constructions in Japanese: A frame semantic approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y., Comrie, B. & Sells, P. eds., 2017. Noun-modifying Clause Constructions in Languages of Eurasia: Rethinking theoretical and geographical boundaries. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Matsumura, K. 1982. Two types of relative clauses in Finnish. Gengo Kenkyu 81: 60–82. https://bit.ly/38gGYhoGoogle Scholar
Maurel, J.-P. 1983. Les relatives en latin: ‘Raising’ ou ‘Matching’? In Pinkster, H., ed., Latin Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 177–96.Google Scholar
Maurel, J.-P. 1989. Subordination seconde du relatif en latin et théorie du ‘COMP’. In Calboli, G., ed., Subordination and Other Topics in Latin. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 181–96.Google Scholar
Mazaudon, M. 1978. La formation des propositions relatives en tibétain. Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 73: 401–14. https://bit.ly/3650hbeGoogle Scholar
McCawley, J. D. 1981. The syntax and semantics of English relative clauses. Lingua 53: 99–149.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. 1988. The Syntactic Phenomena of English. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. 1991. A Linguistic Flea Circus. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistic Club.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. 1996. An overview of ‘appositive’ constructions in English. In ESCOL ’95: 195–211.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. 1998. The Syntactic Phenomena of English. 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. 2004. Remarks on adsentential, adnominal, and extraposed relative clauses in Hindi. In Dayal, V. & Mahajan, A., eds., Clause Structure in South Asian Languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 291–311.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. 1990. Resumptive pronouns, A' binding and levels of representation in Irish. In Hendrick, R., ed., The Syntax of the Modern Celtic Languages. Syntax and Semantics 23. New York: Academic Press. 199–248.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. 2002. Resumption, successive cyclicity, and the locality of operations. In Epstein, S. & Seeley, T. D., eds., Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program. Oxford: Blackwell. 184–226.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. 2006. Resumption. In Everaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H., eds., The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 94–117.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. 2017a. Resumption. In Everaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H., eds., The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. 3809–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom105Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. 2017b. New thoughts on old questions: Resumption in Irish. In Ostrove, J., Kramer, R. & Sabbagh, J., eds., Asking the Right Questions: Essays in honor of Sandra Chung. University of California Santa Cruz: California Digital Library. 81–102. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8255v8scGoogle Scholar
McKinney-Bock, K. 2013. Deriving split-antecedent relative clauses. In University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 19. 113–122.Google Scholar
McKinney-Bock, K. & Vergnaud, J.-R. 2014. Grafts and beyond: Graph-theoretic syntax. In McKinney-Bock, K. & Zubizarreta, M.-L., eds., Primitive Elements of Grammatical Theory. London: Routledge. 207–36.Google Scholar
McNally, L. 2008. DP-internal only, amount relatives, and relatives out of existentials. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 161–9.Google Scholar
McPherson, L. E. 2014. Replacive grammatical tone in the Dogon languages. PhD diss. UCLA. https://bit.ly/38fecxgGoogle Scholar
Meakins, F. & Nordlinger, R. 2014. A grammar of Bilinarra: An Australian Aboriginal language of the Northern Territory. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Meier, C. 2015. Amount relatives as generalized quantifiers. MS. Goethe University Frankfurt. https://bit.ly/2qwOHH2Google Scholar
Meltzer-Asscher, A. 2010. Present participles: Categorial classification and derivation. Lingua 120: 2211–39.Google Scholar
Mendia, J. A. 2017. Amount relatives redux. PhD diss. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_2/1111Google Scholar
Ming, T. 2010. The relative position of demonstratives and relative clauses in Mandarin Chinese. In Proceedings of the 22nd North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics and the 18th International Conference on Chinese Linguistics. Vol. 2. Harvard University. 323–40. https://bit.ly/2PkCD40Google Scholar
Mithun, M. 2012. Questionable relatives. In Comrie, B. & Estrada-Fernández, Z., eds., Relative Clauses in Languages of the Americas: A typological overview. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 269–300.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S. 2008. Genitive subjects in Altaic. In Proceedings of WAFL 4. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. 181–98.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S. 2010. Why Agree? Why Move? Unifying agreement-based and discourse-configurational languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S. 2011. Genitive subjects in Altaic and specification of phase. Lingua 121: 1265–82.Google Scholar
Miyamoto, Y. 2010. On Chinese and Japanese relative clauses and NP-ellipsis. Nanzan Linguistics 6: 13–46. https://bit.ly/2OXLw4tGoogle Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. 1984. Operator binding and the path containment condition. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2: 357–96.Google Scholar
Moltmann, F. 2019. Intensional relative clauses and the semantics of variable objects. In Krifka, M. & Schenner, M., eds., Reconstruction Effects in Relative Clauses. Berlin: de Gruyter. 427–54.Google Scholar
Montague, R. 1970. English as a formal language. In Visentini, B. et al., eds., Linguaggi nella società e nella tecnica. Milan: Edizioni di Comunità. 189–224.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. L. 1972a. Verb agreement as a rule of English. In Peranteau, P. M., Levi, J. N. & Phares, G. C., eds, Papers from the 8th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago. University of Chicago. 278–86.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. L. 1972b. Some aspects of relative clauses in English and Albanian. In Peranteau, P. M., Levi, J. N. & Phares, G. C., eds., The Chicago Which Hunt: Papers from the relative clause festival. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 63–72.Google Scholar
Moroney, M. 2018. Interpretation of internally-headed relative clauses in Shan. In Garvin, K., Hermalin, N., Lapierre, M., Melguy, Y., Scott, T. & Wilbanks, E., eds., Proceedings of the 44th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 197–212. https://bit.ly/2LqOYCjGoogle Scholar
Müller, C. 2015. Against the small clause hypothesis: Evidence from Swedish relative clause extractions. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 38: 67–92.Google Scholar
Munaro, N. 2000. Free relative clauses as defective wh-elements: Evidence from the north-western Italian dialects. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 10: 89–120. http://hdl.handle.net/11707/505Google Scholar
Munaro, N. 2001. Free relatives as defective wh-elements: Evidence from the north-western Italian dialects. In D’Hulst, Y., Rooryck, J. & Schroten, J., eds., Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 1999. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 281–306.Google Scholar
Munro, P. 1974. Topics in Mojave syntax. PhD diss. University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Murelli, A. 2011. Relative constructions in European non-standard varieties. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nakamura, T. 2009. Headed relatives, free relatives, and determiner-headed free relatives. English Linguistics 26: 329–55. https://bit.ly/38d5BLLGoogle Scholar
Nanni, D. L. & Stillings, J. T. 1978. Three remarks on pied-piping. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 310–18.Google Scholar
Napoli, D. J. 1976. Infinitival relatives in Italian. In Lujan, M. & Hensey, F., eds., Current Studies in Romance Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 300–29.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, V. & Otaina, G. A. 2013. A Syntax of the Nivkh Language: The Amur dialect. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nefedov, A. 2012. Relativization in Ket. In Gast, V. & Diessel, H., eds., Clause Linkage in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter. 191–224.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T. & Raumolin-Brunberg, H. 2002. The rise of the relative who in early modern English. In Poussa, P., ed., Relativisation on the North Sea Littoral. Munich : Lincom Europa. 109–21.Google Scholar
Ngonyani, D. 2003. Aspects of relative clause construction in Kindendeule and Kingoni. In Mugane, J., ed., Linguistic Typology and Representation of African Languages. Trenton, NJ and Asmara: Africa World Press. 229–42.Google Scholar
Ngonyani, D. 2006. Resumptive pronominal clitics in Bantu languages. In Arasanyin, O. F. & Pemberton, M. A., eds., Selected Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference on African Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. 51–9.Google Scholar
Nguyen, T. T. M. 2013. A grammar of Bih. PhD diss. University of Oregon. http://hdl.handle.net/1794/12996Google Scholar
Nguyen, T. H. 2004. The structure of the Vietnamese noun phrase. PhD diss. Boston University.Google Scholar
Nikitina, T. 2012. Clause-internal correlatives in Southeastern Mande: A case for the propagation of typological rara. Lingua 122 (4): 319–34.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, I. 2017. The general noun-modifying clause construction in Tundra Nenets and its possible origin. In Matsumoto, Y., Comrie, B. & Sells, P., eds., Noun-Modifying Clause Constructions in Languages of Eurasia: Reshaping theoretical and geographical boundaries. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ning, C. 1993. The overt syntax of relativization and topicalization in Chinese. PhD diss. UC Irvine.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, R. 2006. Spearing the emu drinking: Subordination and the adjoined relative clause in Wambaya. Australian Journal of Linguistics 26: 5–29.Google Scholar
Oguri, H. 1976. Form and meaning in the Isirawa noun phrase. Irian: Bulletin of Irian Jaya Development. 5 (2): 85–103.Google Scholar
Ojeda, A. E. 1982. Degree relatives and the neuter article in Spanish. Proceedings of CLS 18: 407–18.Google Scholar
Ordóñez, F. 2002. Some clitic combinations in the syntax of Romance. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 1: 201–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.59Google Scholar
Otsuka, Y. 2010. Genitive relative constructions and agent incorporation in Tongan. In Mercado, R., Potsdam, E. & Travis, L., eds., Austronesian and Theoretical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 117–40.Google Scholar
Ouhalla, J. 2006. Review of ‘Essays on the representational and derivational nature of grammar: The diversity of wh-constructions’ by Joseph Aoun & Yen-Hui Audrey Li. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003. Language 82: 649–51.Google Scholar
Overfelt, J. 2009. The syntax of relative clause constructions in Tigrinya. MA thesis. Purdue University.Google Scholar
Overfelt, J. 2015. Rightward movement: A study in locality. PhD diss. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. https://bit.ly/2PoKayyGoogle Scholar
Özçelik, Ö. 2014. An antisymmetric analysis of Turkish relative clauses: Implications from prosody. Turkic Languages 18 (1/2): 247–70.Google Scholar
Pan, V. J. 2016. Resumptivity in Mandarin Chinese: A minimalist account. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pancheva Izvorski, R. 2000. Free relatives and related matters. PhD diss. University of Pennsylvania. http://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI9965537Google Scholar
Pankau, A. 2015. The matching analysis of relative clauses: Evidence from Upper Sorbian. In Oseki, Y. et al., eds., Proceedings of the 24th Meeting of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 24. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications. https://bit.ly/2Rr75ffGoogle Scholar
Pankau, A. 2018. The matching analysis of relative clauses: An argument from antipronominal contexts. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 21: 189–245.Google Scholar
Paris, M.-C. 1977. Le morpheme ‘de’ et la relativisation en mandarin. Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 1 (2) 65–76. DOI : https://doi.org/10.3406/clao.1977.1029Google Scholar
Parry, M. 2007. La frase relativa (con antecedente) negli antichi volgari dell'Italia nord-occidentale, LabRomAn 1: 9–32.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. 1976. Some transformational extensions of Montague grammar. In Partee, B. H., ed., Montague Grammar. New York: Academic Press. 51–76.Google Scholar
Patterson, G. & Caponigro, I. 2016. The puzzling degraded status of who free relative clauses in English. English Language and Linguistics 20: 341–52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674315000325Google Scholar
Paul, W. 2018a. Finiteness in Chinese. Handout of a presentation at the Wuppertaler Linguistisches Forum, 24 April.Google Scholar
Payne, A. M. & Drew, D. E. 1970. Kamano Grammar Sketch. Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Payne, J. R. 1982. Relativization in the Iranian languages of the USSR. Folia Slavica 5: 344–63.Google Scholar
Pearce, E. 2016. Whither realis marking: Loss and specialization in an Oceanic language. Diachronica 33(1): 67–94.Google Scholar
Pearson, M. 2000. Two types of VO languages. In Svenonius, P., ed., The Derivation of VO and OV. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Peng, A. E. 2011. Head-final and Head-initial relative clauses in Jambi Teochew. In Otaki, K., Takeyasu, H. & Tanigawa, S-I., eds., Online Proceedings of Glow in Asia: Workshop for young scholars 2011. Mie University, Japan. 262–76. https://bit.ly/38c2OCzGoogle Scholar
Perekhvalskaya, E. 2007. Les propositions relatives en Mwan. Mandenkan 43: 47–59. http://llacan.vjf.cnrs.fr/PDF/Mandenkan43/perexval.pdfGoogle Scholar
Perkins, E. 1982. Extraposition of relative clauses in Navajo. International Journal of American Linguistics 48: 277–85.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M. & Ross, J. R. 1970. Relative clauses with split antecedents. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 350.Google Scholar
Perzanowski, D. 1980 . Appositive relatives do have properties. In Proceedings of NELS 10. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 355–68.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. 1998. Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation. In Barbosa, P., Fox, D., Hagstrom, P., McGinnis, M. & Pesetsky, D., eds., Is the Best Good Enough: Optimality and competition in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 337–83. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/repo/ROA/article/000018Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. & Torrego, E. 2006. Probes, goals and syntactic categories. In Otsu, Y., ed., The Proceedings of the Seventh Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo. 25–60. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000321Google Scholar
Peterson, J. 2006. Kharia: A South Munda language. Vol. 1: Grammatical analysis. Habilitation thesis. Osnabrück University.Google Scholar
Peterson, P. 2004. Non-restrictive relatives and other non-syntagmatic relations in a lexical-functional framework. In Butt, M. & King, T. Holloway, eds., Proceedings of LFG 2004 Conference. 391–7. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Peterson, T. H. 1974. On definite restrictive relatives in Mooré. Journal of West African Languages IX: 71–8.Google Scholar
Pittner, K. 1991. Freie Relativsätze und die Kasushierarchie. In Feldbusch, E., Pogarell, R. & Weiss, C., eds., Neue Fragen der Linguistik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 341–7.Google Scholar
Pizzati, C. 1980. La questione dell’attrazione e della concorrenza del relativo: Il latino come caso tipico. Thesis. University of Padua.Google Scholar
Plank, F. 2003. Noun phrase structure: An und für sich, in time, and in space. In Plank, F., ed., Noun Phrase Structure in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 3–33.Google Scholar
Platero, P. R. 1974. The Navajo relative clause. International Journal of American Linguistics 40: 202–46.Google Scholar
Platzack, C. 2000. A complement-of-N° account of restrictive and non-restrictive relatives: The case of Swedish. In Alexiadou, A., Law, P., Meinunger, A., & Wilder, C., eds., The Syntax of Relative Clauses. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 265–308.Google Scholar
Platzack, C. 2002. Relativization in the Germanic languages with particular emphasis on Scandinavian. In Poussa, P., ed., Relativisation on the North Sea Littoral. Munich: Lincom Europa. 77–96.Google Scholar
Poletto, C. & Sanfelici, E. 2014. What’s in C? On the nature of relative complementizers and pronouns. Paper given at the ‘Workshop on Variation in C’, Venice, 21–22 October.Google Scholar
Poletto, C. & Sanfelici, E. 2017. Relative clauses. In Dufter, A. & Stark, E., eds., Manual of Romance Morphosyntax and Syntax. Berlin: de Gruyter. 804–36.Google Scholar
Poletto, C. & Sanfelici, E. 2018. On demonstratives as relative pronouns. New insights from Italian varieties. In Coniglio, M., Murphy, A., Schlachter, E., & Veenstra, T., eds., Atypical Demonstratives: Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics. Berlin: de Gruyter. 95–126.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2015. Tsez Syntax: A description. MS. Harvard University. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002315Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A. 1992. Anaphors in English and the scope of binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23 (2): 261–303.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. 1992. Opérateurs nuls, dont, questions indirectes, et théorie de la quantification. In Tasmowski, L. & Zribi-Hertz, A., eds., De la musique à la linguistique: Hommages à Nicolas Ruwet. Ghent: Communication & Cognition. 440–63.Google Scholar
Poschmann, C., Bargmann, S., Götze, C., Holler, A., Sailer, M., Webelhuth, G. & Zimmerman, T. E. 2018. Split antecedent relative clauses and the symmetry of predicates. In Sauerland, U. & Solt, S., eds., Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 22, Vol. 2. ZASPiL 61: 253–70. https://bit.ly/2YmfuSEGoogle Scholar
Postal, P. 1972b. On some rules that are not successive cyclic. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 211–22.Google Scholar
Potts, C. 2002. The lexical semantics of parenthetical-as and appositive-which. Syntax 5: 55–88.Google Scholar
Potts, C. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. 1990. Syntax and discourse: A look at resumptive pronouns. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 482–97.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. 1997. On kind-sentences, resumptive pronouns, and relative clauses. In Guy, G. R., Feagin, C., Schiffrin, D. & Baugh, J., eds., Towards a Social Science of Language: Papers in honor of William Labov, Vol. 2. Social interaction and discourse structures. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 223–35.Google Scholar
Prinzhorn, M. & Schmitt, V. 2005. A note on relative pronouns in standard German. In Broekhuis, H., Corver, N., Huybregts, R., Kleinhenz, U. & Koster, J., eds., Organizing Grammar: Linguistic studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 495–504.Google Scholar
Quang, P. D. [McCawley, J.]. 1971. The applicability of transformations to idioms. In Papers from the 7th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 200–05.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. 1985. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radford, A. 1975. Pseudo-relatives and the unity of subject raising. Archivum Linguisticum 6: 32–64.Google Scholar
Radford, A. 1977. Italian Syntax: Transformational and relational grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Radford, A. 2009. Transformational Grammar: A first course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Radford, A. 2016. Analysing English Sentences. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Radford, A. 2018. Colloquial English: Structure and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Radford, A. 2019. Relative Clauses: Structure and variation in everyday English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rackowski, A. 1998. Malagasy adverbs. In Paul, I., ed., The Structure of Malagasy. UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics Vol. 20. Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, UCLA. 11–33.Google Scholar
Rackowski, A. & Travis, L. 2000. V-initial Languages: X or XP movement and adverbial placement. In Carnie, A. & Guilfoyle, E., eds., The Syntax of Verb Initial Languages. New York: Oxford University Press. 117–41.Google Scholar
Rasin, E. 2016. Resumptive pronouns across components: Evidence from Hebrew. Abstract for NELS 2016 conference. https://bit.ly/3656G6gGoogle Scholar
Rasin, E. 2017. Two types of resumptive pronouns: A minimal account of Hebrew interpretive asymmetries. In Lamont, A. & Tetzloff, K., eds., Proceedings of the Forty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 25–35.Google Scholar
Rasom, S. 2008. Lazy concord in the central Ladin feminine plural DP: A case study on the interaction between morphosyntax and semantics. PhD diss. University of Padua. http://paduaresearch.cab.unipd.it/268/Google Scholar
Ravetto, M. 2007. Es war einmal ein Königssohn, der bekam Lust in der Welt umher zu ziehen. Die deutschen d-V2-Sätze: synchrone und diachrone überlegungen. Deutsche Sprache 35: 239–49. https://bit.ly/2DOx9sXGoogle Scholar
Rawlins, K. 2008. (Un)conditionals: An investigation in the syntax and semantics of conditional structures. PhD diss. UC, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Rebuschi, G. 1999. Types de langues et types de constructions: Le cas des correlatives. In Sores, A. & Marchello-Nizia, C., eds., Typologie des langues: Universaux linguistiques. LINX, special issue. Nanterre: University Paris X-Nanterre. 55–72.Google Scholar
Rebuschi, G. 2005. Generalizing the antisymmetric analysis of coordination to nominal modification. Lingua 115: 445–59.Google Scholar
Rebuschi, G. 2009. Position du basque dans la typologie des relatives corrélatives. Langages 174: 25–38.Google Scholar
Reed, A. M. 1975. The structure of English relative clauses. PhD diss. Brandeis University.Google Scholar
Reesink, G. P. 1987. Structures and their functions in Usan: A Papuan language of Papua New Guinea. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Regmi, D. R. 2012. The Nouns and Noun Phrases in the Bhujel Language: A functional-typological perspective. Saarbrücken: LAP Lambert Publishing.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. & Reuland, E. 1991. Anaphors and logophors: An argument structure perspective. In Koster, J. & Reuland, E., eds., Long-distance Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 282–321.Google Scholar
Reintges, C. H., LeSourde, P. & Chung, S. 2006. Movement, wh-agreement and apparent wh-in-situ. In Cheng, L.-L.-S. & Corver, N., eds., Wh-Movement. Moving On. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 165–94.Google Scholar
Reis, M. 2003. On the form and interpretation of German wh-infinitives. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 15 (2): 155–201.Google Scholar
Reşceanu, A. 2014. Reconstruction effects in English and Romanian restrictive relative clauses: The case of idioms. Annals of the University of Craiova XV: 128–42. https://bit.ly/2Rs8H8OGoogle Scholar
Resi, R. 2011. The position of relative clauses in German. Lingue e Linguaggio 1: 87–118.Google Scholar
Rett, J. 2006. Pronominal vs determiner wh-words: Evidence from the copy construction. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 6: 355–74. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss6/rett-eiss6.pdfGoogle Scholar
Rezac, M. 2005. The syntax of clitic climbing in Czech. In Heggie, L. & Ordóñez, F., eds., Clitic and Affix Combinations. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 103–40.Google Scholar
Riehemann, S. Z. 2001. A constructional approach to idioms and word formation. PhD diss. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, H. C. van. 1978. A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness: The binding nature of prepositional phrases. Lisse: The Peter de Ridder Press.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, H. C. van. 1985. On pied-piped infinitives in German relative clauses. In Toman, J., ed., Studies in German Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. 165–92.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, H. C. van. 1989. Swiss relatives. In Jaspers, D., Seuren, P. A. M., Klooster, W. & Putseys, Y., eds., Sentential Complementation and the Lexicon: Studies in honour of Wim de Geest. Dordrecht: Foris. 343–54.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, H. C. van. 1994. Another note on clausal pied-piping. In Cinque, G., Koster, J., Pollock, J.-Y., Rizzi, L., & Zanuttini, R., eds., Paths toward Universal Grammar. Studies in honor of Richard S. Kayne. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 331–42.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, H. C. van. 1998. Syntax driven (crazy) by morphology: Morphological effects in the choice of relativization strategies in Zürich German. In Bruyn, A. & Arends, J., eds., Mengelwerk Voor Muysken Bij Zijn Afscheid Van De Universiteit Van Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Department of Linguistics, University of Amsterdam. 67–74.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, H. C. van. 2000. Free relatives inside out: Transparent free relatives as grafts. In Rozwadowska, B., ed., PASE Papers in Language Studies: Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of the Polish Association for the Study of English. Wroclaw: University of Wroclaw. 223–33.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, H. C. van. 2003. East meets west: About relatives in Swiss German. In Koster, J. & van Riemsdijk, H., eds., Germania et Alia: A linguistic webschrift for Hans den Besten. Groningen: University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, H. C. van. 2006. Free relatives. In Everaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H., eds., The Blackwell Companion to Syntax Vol. II. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 338–82.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, H. C. van. 2008. Identity avoidance: OCP effects in Swiss relatives. In Freidin, R., Otero, C. P., & Zubizarreta, M. L., eds., Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. 227–50.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, H. C. van. 2017. Free relatives. In Everaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H., eds., The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom116Google Scholar
Rijk, R. de. 1972. Relative clauses in Basque: A guided tour. In Peranteau, P. M., Levi, J. N. & Phares, G. C., eds., The Chicago Which Hunt. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 115–35.Google Scholar
Rijkhoff, J. 1998. Order in the noun phrase of the languages of Europe. In Siewierska, A., ed., Constituent Order in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 321–82.Google Scholar
Rinke, E. & Aßmann, E. 2017. The syntax of relative clauses in European Portuguese. Extending the determiner hypothesis of relativizers to relative que. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics, 16 (4): 1–26. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/jpl.172Google Scholar
Rivero, M.-L. 1981. Wh-movement in comparatives in Spanish. In Cressey, W. & Napoli, D. J., eds., Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. Washington, DC: Georgetwon University Press. 177–96.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1986. Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 501–57.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1988. Il sintagma preposizionale. In Renzi, L., ed., Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione. Vol. I. Bologna: Il Mulino. 507–31.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1992. Direct perception, government and thematic sharing. Geneva Generative Papers 1: 39–52.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L., ed., Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 281–337.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2004. Locality and left periphery. In Belletti, A., ed., Structures and Beyond. The cartography of syntactic structures. Vol. 3. New York: Oxford University Press. 223–51.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2006. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Cheng, L. & Corver, N., eds., On Wh Movement. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2010. The cartography of syntactic structures: Criteria, freezing and interface effects. EALing 2010, ENS, Paris, 16 September. https://bit.ly/38gRcOOGoogle Scholar
Roberts, T. 1997. Pashto free relatives and triply-filled Comp: Evidence for a headed analysis. Lingua 102 (2): 77–85.Google Scholar
Rochemont, M. S. & Culicover, P. W. 1990. English Focus Constructions and the Theory of Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rohlfs, G. 1968. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti, Vol. 2: Morfologia. Turin: Einaudi.Google Scholar
Rooryck, J. 1994. Generalized transformations and the wh-cycle: Free relatives as bare wh-CPs. In Zwart, C. J.-W., ed., Minimalism and Kayne’s Asymmetry Hypothesis. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik (GAGL) 37. Groningen: University of Groningen Press. 195–208.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD diss. MIT. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/15166Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. 1969a. Adjectives as noun phrases. In Reibel, D. A. & Schane, S. A.. eds., Modern Studies in English: Readings in transformational grammar. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 352–60.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. 1969b. Guess who? In Binnick, R. I., Davison, A., Green, G. M., Morgan, J. L., eds., Papers from the 5th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago. 252–86.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. 1970. On declarative sentences. In Jacobs, R. & Rosenbaum, P., eds., Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn. 222–72.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. 1984. Inner islands. In Brugman, C., et al., eds., Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 258–65. https://bit.ly/36dR2FJGoogle Scholar
Ross, M. 2002. Jabêm. In Lynch, J., Ross, M. & Crowley, T., eds., The Oceanic Languages. Abingdon: Routledge. 270–96.Google Scholar
Rouveret, A. 1994. Syntaxe du gallois : Principes généraux et typologie. Paris: CNRS Editions.Google Scholar
Rouveret, A. 2002. How are resumptive pronouns linked to the periphery? Linguist Variation Yearbook 2: 123–84.Google Scholar
Rouveret, A. 2008. Phasal agreement and reconstruction. In Freidin, R., Otero, C. P., & Zubizarreta, M. L., eds., Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 167–95.Google Scholar
Rouveret, A. 2011. Some issues in the theory of resumption: A perspective on early and recent research. In Rouveret, A., ed., Resumptive Pronouns at the Interfaces. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1–62.Google Scholar
Rouveret, A. 2018. Computational and semantic aspects of resumption. In Rouveret, A., Aspects of Grammatical Architecture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rubovitz-Mann, T. 2012. Evidential-existentials: An information structure account of extraction from relative clauses. Saarbrücken: LAP Lambert.Google Scholar
Rudin, C. 1986. Aspects of Bulgarian Syntax: Complementizers and wh constructions. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Rudin, C. 2007. Multiple Wh Relatives in Slavic. In Compton, R., Goledzinowska, M., Savchenko, U., eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 15: The Toronto Meeting 2006. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. 282–306.Google Scholar
Rudin, C. 2008. Pair-list vs single pair readings in multiple wh-free relatives and correlatives. In Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 30. 257–67. https://bit.ly/36jZrrBGoogle Scholar
Rullmann, H. 1995. Maximality in the semantics of wh-constructions. PhD diss. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Rumsey, A. 2000. Bunuba. In Dixon, R. M. W. & Blake, B. J., eds., The Handbook of Australian Languages. Vol. 5. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. 35–152.Google Scholar
Ruwet, N. 1991. On the use and abuse of idioms in syntactic argumentation. In Ruwet, N. & Goldsmith, J. A., eds., Syntax and Human Experience. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 171–251.Google Scholar
Ruys, E. 2011. Semantic reconstruction and the interpretation of chains. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 15. 515–29. https://bit.ly/2sRa5YjGoogle Scholar
Saah, K. K. 2010. Relative clauses in Akan. In Aboh, E. O. & Essegbey, J., eds., Topics in Kwa Syntax. Dordrecht: Springer. 91–107.Google Scholar
Sabel, J. 2006. Impossible infinitival interrogatives and relatives. In Brandt, P. & Fuss, E., eds., Form, Function, and Grammar: A festschrift presented to Günther Grewendorf on occasion of his 60th birthday. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 243–54.Google Scholar
Sabel, J. 2015. The emergence of the infinitival left periphery. In Steindl, U. et al., eds., Proceedings of the 32nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. 313–22. http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/32/paper3182.pdfGoogle Scholar
Saddy, D., Sloan, K. & Krivochen, D. 2019. Whoever that likes relatives … In K. R. Christensen, H. Jørgensen & J. L. Wood, eds., The Sign of the V: Papers in honour of Sten Vikner. Department of English, Aarhus University. 523?44. DOI: doi.org/10.7146/aul.348Google Scholar
Safir, K. 1986. Relative clauses in a theory of binding and levels. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 663–89.Google Scholar
Safir, K. 1999. Vehicle change and reconstruction in Ā-chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 587–620.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A. 1997. English relative clause constructions. Journal of Linguistics 33: 431–84.Google Scholar
Salzmann, M. 2006a. Reconstruction in German relative clauses: In favor of the matching analysis. In Dotlačil, J. & Gehrke, B., eds., UiL OTS Working Papers 2006. Proceedings of the second Syntax AiO Meeting in Utrecht, 2005. 65–79. https://bit.ly/34W6dDsGoogle Scholar
Salzmann, M. 2006b. Reconstruction in German restrictive relative clauses. In van de Weijer, J. & Los, B., eds., Linguistics in the Netherlands 2006. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 186–98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.23.19salGoogle Scholar
Salzmann, M. 2006c. Resumptive pronouns and matching effects in Zurich German relative clauses as distributed deletion. Leiden Papers in Linguistics 3 (1): 17–50.Google Scholar
Salzmann, M. 2006d. Resumptive prolepsis: A study in indirect A’-dependencies. PhD diss. Leiden University. https://www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/136_fulltext.pdfGoogle Scholar
Salzmann, M. 2017. Reconstruction and Resumption in Indirect A'-dependencies: On the syntax of prolepsis and relativization in (Swiss) German and beyond. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Salzmann, M. 2019. A new version of the matching analysis of relative clauses. Combining deletion under recoverability with vehicle change. In Krifka, M. & Schenner, M., eds., Reconstruction Effects in Relative Clauses. Berlin: de Gruyter. 187–223.Google Scholar
Salzmann, M. & Seiler, G.. 2010. Variation as the exception or the rule? Swiss relatives, revisited. Sprachwissenschaft 35: 79–117.Google Scholar
Sanfelici, E., Schulz, P. & Trabandt, C. 2017. On German V2 ‘relative clauses’: Linguistic theory meets acquisition. In di Domenico, E., ed., Syntactic Complexity from a Language Acquisition Perspective. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 63–104.Google Scholar
Sauerland, U. 1999. Two structures for English restrictive relative clauses. In Saito, M. et al. eds., Proceedings of the Nanzan Glow. Nagoya: Nanzan University. 351–66.Google Scholar
Sauerland, U. 2003. Unpronounced heads in relative clauses. In Schwabe, K. & Winkler, S., eds., The Interfaces: Deriving and interpreting omitted structures. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 205–26.Google Scholar
Sauerland, U. & Heck, F. 2003. LF-intervention effects in pied-piping. Proceedings of NELS 33. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 347–78.Google Scholar
Saxon, L. 2000. Head-internal relative clauses in Dogrib (Athapaskan). In Carnie, A., Jelinek, E., & Willie, M. A., eds., Papers in Honor of Ken Hale, Working Papers in Endangered and Less Familiar Languages 1. 93–108. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. 2009. Supplements within a unidimensional semantics I: Scope. MS. Institut Jean-Nicod, CNRS, Paris. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002578Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. 2013. Supplements within a unidimensional semantics II: Epistemic status and projection. In Kan, S., Moore-Cantwell, C. & Staubs, R., eds., Proceedings of the Fortieth Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, Vol. 2. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistics Student Association. 167–82.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P. 2017. The semantics and pragmatics of appositives. MS. Institut Jean-Nicod, CNRS and New York University. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002538Google Scholar
Schmitt, V. 2006. Hessian headed relative clauses and the syntactic role of the relative pronoun. MA thesis. University of Vienna.Google Scholar
Schwartz, A. 1971. General aspects of relative clause formation. In Working Papers on Language Universals 6. Stanford University, CA: Committee on Linguistics. 139–71. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED094567Google Scholar
Schuurman, M. 2017. Matching relative clauses with numerals and quantifiers in Mi’gmaq. MA thesis. Concordia University, Montreal. https://bit.ly/2Rqqr4dGoogle Scholar
Schweikert, W. 2005a. The Order of Prepositional Phrases in the Structure of the Clause. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schweikert, W. 2005b. The position of prepositional modifiers in the adverbial space. Rivista di grammatica generativa 30: 115–34.Google Scholar
Scorretti, M. 1991. Complementizers in Italian and Romance. PhD diss. University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Seki, S. 1983. Semantic properties of non-restrictive relative clauses. Tsukuba English Studies 2: 39–62.Google Scholar
Sells, P. 1984. Syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns. PhD diss. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Sells, P. 1985. Restrictive and non-restrictive modification. Report #CSLI-85–28. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Sevcenco, A. 2010. Romanian restrictive relatives: A head raising analysis? Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics XII (2).Google Scholar
Sevcenco, A. 2015. Restrictive and appositive relatives. In Hill, V., ed., Formal Approaches to DPs in Old Romanian. Leiden: Brill. 329–64.Google Scholar
Shagal, K. forthcoming. Relative clauses in Uralic. In Abondolo, D. & Valijärvi, R., eds., The Uralic Languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sharvit, Y. 1997. The syntax and semantics of functional relative clauses. PhD diss. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Sharvit, Y. 1999a. Resumptive pronouns in relative clauses. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 587–612.Google Scholar
Sharvit, Y. 1999b. Functional relative clauses. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 447–78.Google Scholar
Sharvit, Y. 2007. Two reconstruction puzzles. In Jacobson, P. & Barker, C., eds., Direct Compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 336–59.Google Scholar
Shibagaki, R. 2011. Secondary predication in Chinese, Japanese, Mongolian and Korean. PhD diss. School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.Google Scholar
Shimoyama, J. 1999. Internally headed relative clauses in Japanese and e-type anaphora. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8: 147–82.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, U. 1986. Donkey parasites. In McDonough, J. & Plunkett, B., eds., Proceedings of NELS 17. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 569–79.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, U. 1992. Resumptive pronouns as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 438–68.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, U. 2004. Resumptive pronouns in Hebrew. Handout of a Seminar held at CISCL, University of Siena, 15 May. https://bit.ly/2YscrZsGoogle Scholar
Shougrakpam, D. 2014. Relative clause structure in Manipuri. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) 19 (10): 11–14. https://bit.ly/366Pc9MGoogle Scholar
Sichel, I. 2018. Anatomy of a counterexample: Extraction from relative clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 49: 335–78.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. A. 2003. The silence principle. In Delsing, L.-O., Falk, C., Josefsson, G., & Sigurðsson, H. Á., eds., Grammar in focus: Festschrift for Christer Platzack 18 November 2003. Vol. II. Lund University: Institutionen för nordiska språk. 325–34.Google Scholar
Siloni, T. 1995. On participial relatives and complementizer D°. A case study in Hebrew and French. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 445–87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992738Google Scholar
Siloni, T. 1997. Noun Phrases and Nominalizations: The syntax of DPs. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Šimík, R. 2008a. The source of wh-morphology in questions and relative clauses. Proceedings of ConSOLE XV. 273–94.Google Scholar
Šimík, R. 2008b. Specificity in (Czech) relative clauses. In Witkoś, J. & Fanselow, G., eds., Elements of Slavic and Germanic Grammars: A comparative view. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 179–98.Google Scholar
Šimík, R. 2008c. Czech modal existential wh-constructions as vP-level free relatives. In van Koppen, M. & Botma, B., eds., Linguistics in the Netherlands 2008. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 121–32.Google Scholar
Šimík, R. 2011. Modal existential wh-constructions. PhD diss. University of Groningen. https://www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/269_fulltext.pdfGoogle Scholar
Šimík, R. 2017b. An annotated bibliography on modal existential wh-constructions. MS. https://bit.ly/2DOExEGGoogle Scholar
Šimík, R. 2018. Ever free relatives crosslinguistically. In Sauerland, U. & Solt, S., eds., Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 22. Berlin: ZAS. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003919Google Scholar
Simpson, A. 2005. Classifiers and DP structure in southeast Asia. In Cinque, G. & Kayne, R. S., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax. New York: Oxford University Press. 806–38.Google Scholar
Singh, U. N. 1980. Relative clause formation in Maithili. Nepalese Linguistics 1: 27–39.Google Scholar
Sleeman, P. 2010. Superlative adjectives and the licensing of non-modal infinitival subject relatives. In Cabredo Hofherr, P. & Matushansky, O., eds., Adjectives: Formal analyses in syntax and semantics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 233–63.Google Scholar
Sleeman, P. 2011. Verbal and adjectival participles: Internal structure and position. Lingua 121: 1569–87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.05.001Google Scholar
Sleeman, P. 2013. Italian clefts and the licensing of infinitival subject relatives. In Hartmann, K. & Veenstra, T., eds., Cleft Structures. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 319–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.208.12sleGoogle Scholar
Sleeman, P. 2017. Participial relative clauses. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia, Linguistics. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.185Google Scholar
Smith, C. S. 1964. Determiners and relative clauses in generative grammar. Language 40: 37–52.Google Scholar
Smits, R. J. C. 1989. Eurogrammar: The relative and cleft constructions of the Germanic and Romance languages. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Solà, J. 2002. Les subordinades de relatiu. In Solà, J., Lloret, M. R., Mascaró, J., Pérez Saldanya, M., eds., Gramàtica del Català Contemporani. Vol. 2. Barcelona: Editorial Empúries. 1641–88.Google Scholar
Sonoda, K. 2006. The non-restrictive relative that. Health Science Research 19 (1): 1–5.Google Scholar
Song, J. J. 2001. Relative clauses, ch. 4 of Linguistic Typology: Morphology and syntax. Harlow: Longman. 211–56.Google Scholar
Song, J. J. 2003. Resumptive genitive pronouns in Korean relative clauses: Distribution and explanation. SKY Journal of Linguistics 16: 139–60.Google Scholar
Sotiri, M. 2006. Frasi relative in Albanese. In Padua Working Papers in Linguistics 1. 1–14. https://bit.ly/34SK0WOGoogle Scholar
Sportiche, D. 2006. NP movement: How to merge and move in tough-constructions. MS. UCLA. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000258Google Scholar
Sportiche, D. 2008. Inward bound. Splitting the wh-paradigm and French relative qui. MS. UCLA. http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000623Google Scholar
Sportiche, D. 2015. Neglect (or doing away with late merger and countercyclicity). MS. UCLA. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002775Google Scholar
Sportiche, D. 2017a. Relative clauses. Promotion only, in steps. MS. UCLA. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003444Google Scholar
Sportiche, D. 2017b. Reconstruction, binding and scope. In Everaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H., eds., The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom002Google Scholar
Sportiche, D., Koopman, H. & Stabler, E. 2014. An Introduction to Syntactic Analysis and Theory. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sposato, A. 2012. Relative clauses in Xong (Miao-Yao). Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society (JSEALS) 5: 49–66. http://jseals.org/pdf/sposato2012relative.pdfGoogle Scholar
Sproat, R. & Shih, C. 1990. The cross-linguistics distribution of adjectival ordering restrictions. In Georgopoulos, C. & Ishihara, R., eds., Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language: Essays in honor of S.-Y. Kuroda. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 565–93.Google Scholar
Srivastav, V. 1988. Hindi relative clauses and learnability. In Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 8. 133–60.Google Scholar
Srivastav, V. 1991a. The syntax and semantics of correlatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 637–86.Google Scholar
Srivastav, V. 1991b. Wh dependencies in Hindi and the theory of grammar. PhD diss. Cornell University.Google Scholar
Stanton, T. 2011. The reduced relative: A misnomer? Début: The Undergraduate Journal of Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies 2(2): 55–65.Google Scholar
Stark, E. 2016. Relative clauses. In Ledgeway, A. & Maiden, M., eds., The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1029–40.Google Scholar
Stechow, A. von. 1979. Visiting German relatives. In Bäuerle, R., Egli, U. & von Stechow, A., eds., Semantics from Different Points of View. Berlin: Springer. 226–65.Google Scholar
Sternefeld, W. 1998. The semantics of reconstruction and connectivity. Arbeitspapier 97, SFB 340. Tübingen University and Stuttgart University.Google Scholar
Sternefeld, W. 2001. Semantic vs syntactic reconstruction. In Rohrer, C., Roßdeutscher, A. & Kamp, H., eds., Linguistic Form and Its Computation. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 145–82.Google Scholar
Sternefeld, W. 2019. Telescoping by continuations. In Krifka, M. & Schenner, M., eds., Reconstruction Effects in Relative Clauses. Berlin: de Gruyter. 387–403.Google Scholar
Stockwell, R. P., Schachter, P. & Partee, B. H. 1973. The Major Syntactic Structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Stowell, T. 2005. Appositive and parenthetical relative clauses. In Broekhuis, H., Corver, N., Huybregts, R., Kleinhenz, U., & Koster, J., eds., Organizing Grammar: Linguistic studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 608–17.Google Scholar
Struckmeier, V. 2012. A morphologically guided matching approach to German(ic) relative constructions. In Ackema, P. et al., eds., Comparative Germanic Syntax: The state of the art. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 387–413.Google Scholar
Studler, R. 2014. The morphology, syntax and semantics of definite determiners in Swiss German. In Cabredo Hofherr, P. & Zribi-Hertz, A., eds., Crosslinguistic Studies on Noun Phrase Structure and Reference. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 39. Leiden: Brill. 143–71.Google Scholar
Subbārāo, K. V. 2012. South Asian Languages: A syntactic typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Subbārāo, K. V. & Kevichüsa, M. 2005. Internally Headed Relative Clauses in Sema. In Bhattacharya, T., ed., The Yearbook of South Asian Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 255–72.Google Scholar
Suñer, M. 1984. Free relatives and the matching parameter. The Linguistic Review 3: 363–87.Google Scholar
Suñer, M. 2001. The puzzle of restrictive relative clauses with conjoined DP antecedents. In Herschensohn, J., Mallén, E., & Zagona, K., eds., Features and Interfaces in Romance: Essays in honor of Heles Contreras. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 267–78.Google Scholar
Szczegielniak, A. 2005. Two types of resumptive pronouns in Polish relative clauses. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 5 (1): 165–85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.5.06szcGoogle Scholar
Szczegielniak, A. 2006. Two types of relative clauses in Slavic: Evidence from reconstruction and ellipsis. In Martínez, M. T., Alcázar, A., & Hernández, R. M., eds., Proceedings of the Thirty-third Western Conference on Linguistics. WECOL 2004. Vol. 16. 373–85.Google Scholar
Szczegielniak, A. 2012. Degree phrase raising in relative clauses. In Taboada, C., Fernández, J., González, M., & Tejedor, R., eds., Information Structure, Agreement and CP. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 255–74.Google Scholar
Szczegielniak, A. 2016. Relative constructions with partial labels. MS. Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Szucsich, L. 2003. The structure of relative clauses in Slavic. In Kosta, P. et al., eds., Investigations into Formal Slavic Linguistics, 2. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 697–713.Google Scholar
Tagashira, Y. 1972. Relative clauses in Korean. In Peranteau, P. M., Levi, J. N., & Phares, G. C., eds., The Chicago Which Hunt: Papers from the relative clause festival. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 215–29.Google Scholar
Taghvaipour, M. A. 2005. Persian relative clauses, in head-driven phrase structure grammar. PhD diss. University of Essex.Google Scholar
Takizala, A. 1973. Focus and relativization: The case of Kihung’an. In Kimball, J., ed., Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 2. New York: Seminar Press. 123–48.Google Scholar
Tallerman, M. 1983. Island constraints in Welsh. York Papers in Linguistics 10: 197–204.Google Scholar
Tao, H. & McCarthy, M. J. 2001. Understanding non-restrictive which-clauses in spoken English, which is not an easy thing. Language Sciences 23: 651–77.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, K. T. 1978. The scope of wh movement in Norwegian. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 623–40.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, K. T. 1981. The theoretical interpretation of a class of ‘marked’ extractions. In Belletti, A., Brandi, L. & Rizzi, L. (eds) The Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore. 475–516.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, K. T. 1982. Extraction from relative clauses in Norwegian. In Engdahl, E. & Ejerhed, E., eds., Readings on Unbounded Dependencies in Scandinavian Languages. Umeå: Almqvist & Wiksell. 205–21.Google Scholar
Taylor, A. J. 1970. Syntax and phonology of Motu (Papua): A transformational approach. PhD diss. Australian National University. https://bit.ly/2Yvs1n6Google Scholar
Tellier, C. 1989. Head-internal relatives and parasitic gaps in Mooré. In Haïk, I. & Tuller, L., eds., Current Approaches to African Linguistics, Vol. 6. Dordrecht: Foris. 298–318.Google Scholar
Tellier, C. & Valois, D. 2006. Constructions méconnues du français. Montreal: Presses de l’Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Teng, S.-H. 1981. Deixis, anaphora, and demonstratives in Chinese. Cahiers de linguistique – Asie orientale 10: 5–18.Google Scholar
Terzi, A. 1999. Clitic combinations, their hosts and their ordering. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 85–121.Google Scholar
Testelec, Y. G. 1998. Word order in Daghestanian languages. In Siewierska, A., ed., Constituent Order in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 257–80.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. 1971. The deep structure of relative clauses. In Fillmore, C. & Langendoen, D. T., eds., Studies in Linguistic Semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 79–96.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A., Park, J. S.-Y., & Li, C. N. 2006. A Reference Grammar of Wappo. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0dv86220Google Scholar
Thorne, J. P. 1988. Non-restrictive relative clauses. In Duncan-Rose, C. & Vennemann, T. C., eds., On Language: Rhetorica, phonologica, syntactica. London: Routledge. 424–36.Google Scholar
Thurgood, G., Thurgood, E. & Fenxiang, L. 2014. A Grammatical Sketch of Hainan Cham: History, contact, and phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tiffou, E. & Patry, R. 1995. La relative en bourouchaski du Yasin. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 90 (1): 335–91.Google Scholar
Toman, J. 1998. A discussion of resumptives in colloquial Czech. In Bošković, Ž., Franks, S., & Snyder, W., eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL) 6: The Connecticut meeting 1997. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications. 303–18.Google Scholar
Torrence, H. 2005. A promotion analysis of Wolof relative clauses. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 107–17.Google Scholar
Tosco, M. 2001. The Dhaasanac Language: Grammar, texts, vocabulary of a Cushitic language of Ethiopia. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.Google Scholar
Tóth, B. 2019. Arguments for the matching analysis of Hungarian lexically headed relatives. Poster given at ConSOLE 2019, 21–23 February. http://bit.ly/34XoyjAGoogle Scholar
Tredinnick, V. A. 2005. On the semantics of free relatives with -ever. PhD diss. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Truswell, R. 2011. Relatives with a leftward island in early modern English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 291–332.Google Scholar
Truswell, R. 2012. English and the typology of non-restrictive relative clauses. CLA, 28 May. http://robtruswell.com/assets/pdfs/CLA_EModE.pdfGoogle Scholar
Trutkowski, E. & Weiß, H. 2016a. When personal pronouns compete with relative pronouns. In Grosz, P. et al., eds., The Impact of Pronominal Form on Interpretation. Berlin: de Gruyter. 135–66.Google Scholar
Trutkowski, E. & Weiß, H. 2016b. (Dis-)agreement in relative clauses. Relativsatz-Kolloquium/DFG-Forschergruppe, Goethe University Frankfurt, 12 July. http://bit.ly/34Wsd19Google Scholar
Tsai, H.-C. J. 2008. On gapless relative clauses in Chinese. Nanzan Linguistics. 5: 109–24. http://bit.ly/2LuH4baGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, J. 1995. Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 79–123.Google Scholar
Utzeri, I. 2007. The production and acquisition of subject and object relative clauses in Italian: A comparative experimental study. Nanzan Linguistics. 3 (1): 283–313. http://bit.ly/2RrJlrmGoogle Scholar
Vaillette, N. 2001. Hebrew relative clauses in HPSG. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 305–24. https://stanford.io/33RsPn7Google Scholar
Vanden Wyngaerd, G. & Zwart, C. J.-W. 1991. Reconstruction and vehicle change. In Drijkoningen, F. & van Kemenade, A. M. C., eds., Linguistics in the Netherlands 1991. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 151–60.Google Scholar
Vasu, R. 1994. On the nature of wh-trace in Tamil relative clauses. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 23: 44–64.Google Scholar
Vedovato, D. & Penello, N. 2007. La grammatica del che e delle frasi relative: un’esperienza didattica. Grammatica e Didattica 1: 85–129. http://bit.ly/33XihDdGoogle Scholar
Vergnaud, J.-R. 1985. Dépendences et niveaux de représentation en syntaxe. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vicente, L. 2004. Inversion, reconstruction, and the structure of relative clauses. In Auger, J., Clements, J. C. & Vance, B., eds., Contemporary Approaches to Romance Linguistics: Selected papers from the 33rd linguistics symposium on Romance languages (LSRL), Bloomington, Indiana, April 2003. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 361–79.Google Scholar
Viel, V. 2001. The grammar of relative clauses in old and middle English. Thesis. University of Padua.Google Scholar
Villalobos, M. E. 1994. Bribri, lengua con cláusulas relativas de núcleo interno. Letras 29–30: 225–39.Google Scholar
Vincent, J. W. 2017. D-raising in Chamorro relative clauses and other A′ constructions. MA thesis. University of California, Santa Cruz. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0jq7096rGoogle Scholar
Vogel, R. 2001. Case conflict in German free-relative constructions: An optimality-theoretic treatment. In Müller, G. & Sternefeld, W., eds., Competition in Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 341–75.Google Scholar
Vogel, R. 2003. Surface matters: Case conflict in free relative constructions and case theory. In Brandner, E. & Zinsmeister, H., eds., New Perspectives on Case Theory. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 269–99.Google Scholar
Vries, L. de. 1993. Forms and Functions in Kombai, an Awyu language of Irian Jaya. Canberra: Australian National University Press.Google Scholar
Vries, M. de. 2001. Patterns of relative clauses. In van der Wouden, T. & Broekhuis, H., eds., Linguistics in the Netherlands 2001. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 231–43.Google Scholar
Vries, M. de. 2002. The syntax of relativization. PhD diss. University of Amsterdam. www.let.rug.nl/dvries/pdf/proefschrift-mdevries.pdfGoogle Scholar
Vries, M. de. 2005. The fall and rise of universals on relativization. Journal of Universal Language 6: 125–57.Google Scholar
Vries, M. de. 2006. The syntax of appositive relativization. On specifying coordination, false free relatives and promotion. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 229–70.Google Scholar
Vries, M. de. 2009. Specifying coordination: An investigation into the syntax of dislocation, extraposition, and parenthesis. In Dreyer, C. R., ed., Language and linguistics: Emerging trends. New York: Nova. 37–98.Google Scholar
Vries, M. de. 2012. Unconventional mergers. In Uribe-Etxebarria, M. & Valmala, V., eds., Ways of Structure Building. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 143–66.Google Scholar
Vydrina, A. 2017. A corpus‐based description of Kakabe, a western Mande language: Prosody in grammar. Vol. I. PhD diss. INALCO, Paris. http://bit.ly/2sKBNWqGoogle Scholar
Walker, B. R. 2005. Relative clauses in Sinhala. In Englebretson, R. & Genetti, C., eds., Santa Barbara Working Papers in Linguistics 17. Proceedings from the Workshop on Sinhala Linguistics. University of California, Santa Barbara: Department of Linguistics. 163–71. https://bit.ly/2YxBWZrGoogle Scholar
Walker, H. 2017. The syntax and semantics of relative clause attachment. PhD diss. Goethe University Frankfurt. http://bit.ly/34ZjnjcGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, A. 2004. Parametrization of quantificational determiners and head-internal relatives. Language and Linguistics 5: 59–97.Google Scholar
Watanabe, A. 2016. Amount relatives in Japanese. In Sugawara, A., Hayashi, S. & Ito, S., eds., Proceedings of the Eighth Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics Conference (FAJL8). MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. 189–208.Google Scholar
Watters, D. E. 2006. Notes on Kusunda grammar. A language isolate of Nepal. Himalayan Linguistics Archive 3: 1–182. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/83v8d1wvGoogle Scholar
Watters, J. R. 2000. Syntax. In Heine, B. & Nurse, D., eds., African Languages: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 194–230.Google Scholar
Watters, J. R. 2003. Grassfields Bantu. In Nurse, D. & Philippson, G., eds., The Bantu Languages. London: Routledge. 225–56.Google Scholar
Webelhuth, G. 1992. Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Webelhuth, G. 2011. Capturing collocations and idioms in relative clauses without literal reconstruction. Handout of a talk presented at the workshop on ‘Reconstruction Effects in Relative Clauses’, Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS), Berlin, 8 July.Google Scholar
Webelhuth, G., Bargmann, S. & Götze, C. 2017. More empirical evidence against the raising analysis of relative clauses. In Halpert, C., Kotek, H. & van Urk, C., eds., A Pesky Set: Papers for David Pesetsky. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. 11–14.Google Scholar
Webelhuth, G., Bargmann, S. & Götze, C. 2019. Idioms as evidence for the proper analysis of relative clauses. In Krifka, M. & Schenner, M., eds., Reconstruction Effects in Relative Clauses. Berlin: de Gruyter. 225–62.Google Scholar
Webelhuth, G., Sailer, M. & Walker, H. 2013. Introduction. In Webelhuth, G., Sailer, M. & Walker, H., eds., Rightward Movement in a Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1–60.Google Scholar
Weiß, H. 2013. Satztyp und Dialekt. In Meibauer, J., Steinbach, M. & Altman, H., eds., Staztypen des Deutchen. Berlin: de Gruyter. 763–84.Google Scholar
Whitman, J. 2013 . The prehead relative clause problem. In Özge, U., ed., Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistic. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. 361–80.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. 2017. Internally-headed relative clauses in sign languages. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1): 25. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.183Google Scholar
Wilder, C. 1999. Transparent free relatives. In Shahin, K. N., Blake, S. & Kim, E.-S., eds., Proceedings of the Seventeenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI. 685–99.Google Scholar
Williams, E. 1975. Small clauses in English. In Kimball, J. P., ed., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 4. New York: Academic Press. 249–73.Google Scholar
Williamson, J. S. 1987. An indefinite restriction for relative clauses in Lakhota. In Reuland, E. J. & ter Meulen, A. G. B., eds., The Representation of (In)definiteness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 168–90.Google Scholar
Williamson, S. 2016. Subject contact relatives: A cross-dialectal approach. Calgary (Working) Papers in Linguistics 29: 41–60. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/28995Google Scholar
Willis, D. 2000. On the distribution of resumptive pronouns and wh-trace in Welsh. Journal of Linguistics 36: 531–73.Google Scholar
Willis, D. 2006. Against N-raising and NP-raising of Welsh noun phrases. Lingua 116: 1807–39.Google Scholar
Willis, D. 2011. The limits of resumption in Welsh wh-dependencies. In Rouveret, A., ed., Resumptive Pronouns at the Interfaces. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 189–221.Google Scholar
Wilson, W. A. 1963. Relative constructions in Dagbani. Journal of African Languages 2 (2): 139–44.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, M. 1998. On the syntax and semantics of (relative) pronouns and determiners. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2: 43–181.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, M. 2012. What does it take to host a (restrictive) relative? Working Papers of the Linguistic Circle of the University of Victoria 21: 100–45.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, M. 2013. Descriptive relative clauses in Austro-Bavarian German. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 58 (2): 157–89.Google Scholar
Wood, J., Sigurðsson, E. F. & Nowenstein, I. E. 2017. Inverse attraction in Icelandic relative clauses. In Thráinsson, H., Heycock, C., Petersen, H. P. & Hansen, Z. S., eds., Syntactic Variation in Insular Scandinavian. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 200–32.Google Scholar
Wu, H.-H. I. 2016. The syntax of correlatives in Isbukun Bunun. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 61 (2): 190–210.Google Scholar
Wu, T. 2008. La relativisasion prénominale: Étude comparative sur l’amharique, le basque, le chinois mandarin, le japonais, le quechua et le turc. Mémoire de Master. Département des Sciences du Langage, Lumière University Lyon 2.Google Scholar
Wu, T. 2009. Relative clause without complementizer in Mandarin, with reference to Cantonese. 5th international conference on modern Chinese grammar, 28–30 November, Hong Kong Polytechnic University.Google Scholar
Wu, T. 2011. The syntax of prenominal relative clauses: A typological study. Linguistic Typology 15: 569–623.Google Scholar
Yadroff, M. & Billings, L. 1998. The syntax of approximative inversion in Russian. In Bošković, Ž., Franks, S. & Snyder, W., eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Connecticut Meeting (FASL 6). Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications. 319–38.Google Scholar
Yamashita, I. & Chang, F. 2001. ‘Long before short’ preference in the production of a head-final language. Cognition 81: B45–B55. http://bit.ly/2YnE2uFGoogle Scholar
Yang, H. S.-F. 2006. On overt and covert wh- and relative movement in Hindi and Punjabi. In Cheng, L. L-S. & Corver, N., eds., Wh-Movement: Moving on. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 135–64.Google Scholar
Yanti, J., McKinnon, T., Cole, P. & Hermon, G. 2012. Relative clauses in Jambi Malay and Kerinci Malay. Paper given at the International Workshop on Clause Combining in/around Indonesia, 7–8 October, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
Yoshioka, N. 2012. A reference grammar of Eastern Burushaski. PhD diss. Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. http://repository.tufs.ac.jp/handle/10108/72148Google Scholar
Yuasa, E. 2005. Independence in subordinate clauses: Analysis of non-restrictive relative clauses in English and Japanese. In Mufwene, S. S., Francis, E. J., Wheeler, R. S., eds., Polymorphous Linguistics: Jim McCawley’s legacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 135–60.Google Scholar
Zagona, K. 1988. Verb Phrase Syntax: A parametric study of English and Spanish. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Zeller, J. 2004. Relative clause formation in the Bantu languages of South Africa. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 22 (1/2): 75–93. http://www.jzeller.de/pdf/SALALSBantuRelativesOffprint.pdfGoogle Scholar
Zeller, J. 2006. On the relation between noun prefixes and grammaticalization in Nguni relative clauses. Studia Linguistica 60: 220–49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.2006.00138.xGoogle Scholar
Zhang, L. 2007. The two positions of Chinese relative clauses. PhD diss. University of South Carolina.Google Scholar
Zhang, N. N. (2001a). On the absence of non-restrictive relatives (in Chinese). MS. Berlin: ZAS. http://www.swtang.net/doc/study_appositivies_zhang_2001.pdfGoogle Scholar
Zhang, N. N. 2007. The syntactic derivations of split antecedent relative clause constructions. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 5: 19–48. http://tjl.nccu.edu.tw/main/uploads/2NiinaNingZhang11.pdfGoogle Scholar
Zhang, N. N. 2008. Gapless relative clauses as clausal licensers of relational nouns. Language and Linguistics 9: 1005–28.Google Scholar
Zhang, N. N. 2013. Classifier Structures in Mandarin Chinese. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zhang, N. N. 2015. Nominal-internal phrasal movement in Mandarin Chinese. The Linguistic Review 32: 375–425.Google Scholar
Zhang, N. N. 2018. Deriving existential entailment constructions in Mandarin Chinese. MS. National Chung Cheng University.Google Scholar
Ziv, Y. 1973. Why can’t appositives be extraposed? Papers in Linguistics 6 (2): 243–54.Google Scholar
Ziv, Y. & Cole, P. 1974. Relative extraposition and the scope of definite descriptions in Hebrew and English. CLS 10: 772–86.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, A. & Hanne, J.-F. 1995. Pronoms, déterminants et relatives en Bambara de Bamako. Linguistique Africaine 15: 91–135.Google Scholar
Zwart, J.-W. 2000. A head raising analysis of relative clauses in Dutch. In Alexiadou, A., Law, P., Meinunger, A., Wilder, C., eds., The Syntax of Relative Clauses. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 349–385.Google Scholar
Zwart, J.-W. 2005. Ietz over zgn. V2-relatieven in het Nederlands. Nederlandse Taalkunde 10: 59–81.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. 2002. I wonder what kind of construction that this example illustrates. In Beaver, D. I. et al., eds., The Construction of Meaning. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 219–48.Google Scholar