Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Role and Reference Grammar
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Role and Reference Grammar
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Pedagogical Guide to The Cambridge Handbook of Role and Reference Grammar
- Introduction
- Part One Overview
- Part Two Topics in RRG: Simple Sentences
- Part Three Topics in RRG: Complex Sentences
- Part Four Applications of RRG
- Part Five Grammatical Sketches
- Index
- References
Part Three - Topics in RRG: Complex Sentences
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 June 2023
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Role and Reference Grammar
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Role and Reference Grammar
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Pedagogical Guide to The Cambridge Handbook of Role and Reference Grammar
- Introduction
- Part One Overview
- Part Two Topics in RRG: Simple Sentences
- Part Three Topics in RRG: Complex Sentences
- Part Four Applications of RRG
- Part Five Grammatical Sketches
- 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 Cambridge Handbook of Role and Reference Grammar , pp. 523 - 644Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
References
Akiba, Katsue. 1977. Switch-reference in Old Japanese. In Whistler, Kenneth, Robert, D. Van Valin, Jr., Chiarello, Chris, Jaeger, Jeri J., Petruck, Miriam, Thompson, Henry, Javkin, Ronya and Woodbury, Anthony (eds.), Proceedings of the Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 610–619. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Akiba, Katsue. 1978. A Historical Study of Old Japanese Syntax. PhD dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 1993. Belhare subordination and the theory of topic. In Ebert, Karen H. (ed.), Studies in Clause Linkage. Papers from the First Köln-Zürich Workshop, 23–55. Zurich: Seminar für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2010. Capturing particulars and universals in clause linkage: a multivariate analysis. In Bril (ed.), 51–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bril, Isabelle (ed.). 2010. Clause Linking and Clause Hierarchy: Syntax and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton-Roberts, Noel. 2005. Parentheticals. In Brown, Keith (ed. in chief), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 9 (2nd ed.), 179–182. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dedrick, John M. and Casad, Eugene H.. 1999. Sonora Yaqui Language Structures. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Diller, A. V. N. 2006. Thai serial verbs: Cohesion and culture. In Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.), Serial Verb Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Typology, 160–177. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Farrell, Patrick, Marlett, Stephen A. and Perlmutter., David M. 1991. Notion of subjecthood and switch reference: evidence from Seri. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 431–456.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul and O’Connor., Mary Catherine 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64: 501–538.Google Scholar
Foley, William. 2010. Clause linkage and nexus in Papuan languages. In Bril (ed.), 27–50.Google Scholar
Foley, William and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1980. The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements. Studies in Language 4: 333–377.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1985. Iconicity, isomorphism, and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. In Haiman, John (ed.), Iconicity in Syntax, 187–219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1985. Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, John and Thompson., Sandra A. 1984. ‘Subordination’ in universal grammar. In Brugman, Claudia and Macaulay, Monica (eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 510–523 Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Yoko. 1996. A Study of Japanese Clause Linkage: The Connective TE in Japanese. Stanford: CSLI Publications/Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees and Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. 2008. Functional-Discourse Grammar: A Typologically-Based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Heine, Bernd and Kuteva., Tania 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35: 848–893.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1988. Towards a typology of clause linkage. In Haiman, John and Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, 181–225. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAuley, T. E. 2002. Switch-reference and semantic discontinuity in Late Old Japanese. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 18: 29–58.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina and Tolskaya., Maria 2001. A Grammar of Udihe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ohori, Toshio. 1992. Diachrony in Clause Linkage and Related Issues. PhD dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Ohori, Toshio. 1994. Diachrony of clause linkage: TE and BA in Old through Middle Japanese. In Paliugca, William (ed.), Perspectives on Grammaticalization, 135–149. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ohori, Toshio. 2001. Some thoughts on a new systematization of interclausal semantic relations. Paper presented at the Role and Reference Grammar Workshop, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Ohori, Toshio. 2002. Kootai-shiji koo-bun no tsuujisoo: toogo-henka to kategorii-ka (Diachrony of switch-reference constructions: syntactic change and categorization). In Ohori, Toshio (ed.), Ninchi Gengogaku II: Kategorii-ka (Cognitive Linguistics II: Categorization), 297–321. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.Google Scholar
Ohori, Toshio. 2005. Construction Grammar as a conceptual framework for linguistic typology: A case from reference tracking. In Fried, Mirjam and Boas, Hans C. (eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots, 215–237. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, Michael L. 1981. Barai Clause Junctures: Toward a Functional Theory of Interclausal Relations. PhD dissertation, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Pavey, Emma L. 2010. The Structure of Language: An Introduction to Grammatical Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, John R. 1988. Amele switch-reference and the theory of grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 45–64.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1972. Three reasons for not deriving ‘kill’ from ‘cause to die’ in Japanese. In Kimball, John P. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 1, 125–137. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Dixon, R. M. W. (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1993. Of nominatives and datives: Universal Grammar from the bottom up. In Van Valin (ed.), 465–498 (orig. unpublished ms. 1981).Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (ed.). 1993. Advances in Role and Reference Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2005. Exploring the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2021. Cosubordination. In Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (ed.), Challenges at the Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. and LaPolla, Randy J.. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vásquez Soto, Verónica. 2002. Some constraints on Cora causative constructions. In Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.), The Grammar of Causation and Interpersonal Manipulation, 197–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Watters, James K. 1993. An investigation of Turkish clause linkage. In Van Valin (ed.), 535–560.Google Scholar
Weber, David John. 1983. Relativization and Nominalized Clauses in Huallaga (Huánuco) Quechua. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Weber, David John. 1989. A Grammar of Huallaga (Huánuco) Quechua. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
References
Bickel, Balthasar. 1993. Belhare subordination and the theory of topic. In Ebert, K. (ed.), Studies in Clause Linkage (Papers from the First Köln-Zürich Workshop). Arbeiten des Seminars für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (no. 12), 23–55. Zurich: University of Zürich.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2003. Clause Linkage Typology. Lecture series delivered at the 2003 International Role and Reference Grammar Conference, UNESP, Brazil.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2010. Capturing particulars and universals in clause linkage: A multivariate analysis. In Bril, (ed.), 51–104.Google Scholar
Bril, Isabelle. 2010. Clause Linking and Clause Hierarchy: Syntax and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Conti, Carmen. 2012. Subordinación periférica y subordinación dependiente: clasificación estructural de la subordinación adverbial en español. In Mairal, R. Usón, Guerrero, L. and González-Vergara, C., El funcionalismo en la teoría lingüística: La Gramática del Papel y la Referencia, 269–286. Spain: AKAL.Google Scholar
Cutrer, Michelle. 1993. Semantic and syntactic factors of control. In Van Valin, Robert (ed.), Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, 167–196. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dedrick, John M. and Casad, Eugene H.. 1999. Sonora Yaqui Language Structures. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2008. Iconicity of sequence: A corpus-based analysis of the positioning of temporal adverbial clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics 19(3): 465–490.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2013. Adverbial subordination. In Luraghi, S. and Parodi, C. (eds.), Bloomsbury Companion to Syntax, 341–354. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger and Hetterle, Katja. 2011. Causal clauses: A cross-linguistic investigation of their structure, meaning and use. In Siemund, P. (ed.), Linguistic Universals and Language Variation, 23–45. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2009. The Semantics of Clause Linking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. 2010. Clause linkage and nexus in Papuan languages. In Bril, (ed.), 51–104.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia. 1993. Grammar in Interaction: Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gast, Volker and Diessel, Holger. 2012. Clause Linkage in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Data-Driven Approaches to Cross-Clausal Syntax. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Gerardo-Tavira, Rebeca. 2018. Oraciones subordinadas temporales: orden, iconicidad y relaciones entre eventos. PhD dissertation, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Guerrero, Lilián. 2006. The Structure and Function on Yaqui Complementation. PhD thesis, University at Buffalo (SUNY).Google Scholar
Guerrero, Lilián. 2009. On the semantic dimension of complementation. In Guerrero, L., Ibáñez, S. and Belloro, V.. Studies in Role and Reference Grammar, 319–343. Mexico: UNAM.Google Scholar
Guerrero, Lilián. 2011. Clause linkage and purpose clauses in Southern Uto-Aztecan Languages. In Nakamura, W. (ed.), New Perspectives in RRG, 217–245. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Guerrero, Lilián. 2012. Más sobre controladores y pivotes: el caso de las cláusulas de propósito. In Mairal Usón, R., Guerrero, L. and González-Vergara, C. (eds.), El funcionalismo en la teoría lingüística: la Gramática del Papel y la Referencia, 307–329. Madrid: AKAL.Google Scholar
Guerrero, Lilián. 2013. Controller–controllee relations in purposive constructions: A construction based account. In Nolan, B. and Diedrichsen, E. (eds.), Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics: The Role of Constructions in Grammar, 1–22. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Guerrero, Lilián. 2017. On purpose, causal and reason clauses in Yaqui. International Journal of American Linguistics 83: 679–718.Google Scholar
Guerrero, Lilián. 2019. Yaqui clauses and the Interclausal Relations Hierarchy. In Kailuweit, R., Künkel, L. and Staudinger, E. (eds.), Applying and Expanding Role and Reference Grammar. Germany: NIHIN.Google Scholar
Guerrero, Lilián, Belloro, V. and Conti, Carmen. 2017. Motivaciones en conflicto en la posición de adjuntos temporales de secuencia. Onomázein 36(June): 98–121.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 1998. Adverbial clauses in the languages of Europe. In Van der Auwera, J. (ed.), Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe 335–420. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hetterle, Katja. 2015. Adverbial Clauses in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1988. Towards a typology of clause linkage. In Haiman, J. and Thompson, S. A. (eds.), Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, 181–225. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Matić, Dejan, van Gijn, Rik and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2014. Information structure and reference tracking in complex sentences. In van Gijn, R., Hammond, J., Matić, D., van Putten, S. and Galucio, A. V., Information Structure and Reference Tracking in Complex Sentences, 1–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1988. The structure of discourse and ‘subordination’. In Haiman, J. and Thompson, S. A. (eds.), Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, 275−329. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
McDaniels, Todd. 2014. Rationale and purposive clauses in Comanche. International Journal of American Linguistics (80): 69–97.Google Scholar
Pérez Quintero, María Jesús. 2002. Adverbial Subordination in English: A Functional Approach. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra, Longacre, Robert and Hwang, Shin J.. 2007. Adverbial clauses. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 2, 237–300. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vallejos, Rosa. 2014. Reference constraints and information structure management in Kokama purpose clauses: A typological novelty? International Journal of American Linguistics 80(1): 39–67.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2005. Exploring the Syntax–Semantic Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2007. Recent developments in the Role and Reference Grammar theory of clause linkage. Language and Linguistics 8(1): 71–93.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2009. Privileged syntactic arguments, pivots, and controllers. In Guerrero, L., Ibáñez, S. and Belloro, V. (eds.), Studies in Role and Reference Grammar, 45–68. México: UNAM.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2021. Cosubordination. In Van Valin, R. (ed.), Challenges at the Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface: A Role and Reference Grammar Perspective, 241–254. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Van, Valin, Robert D. Jr. and LaPolla, Randy J.. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wash, Suzanne. 2001. Adverbial Clauses in Barbareño Chumash Narrative Discourse. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
References
Bentley, Delia, Ciconte, Francesco Maria and Cruschina., Silvio 2015. Existentials and Locatives in Romance Dialects of Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bird, Charles. 1968. Relative clauses in Bambara. Journal of West African Languages 5: 35–47.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Tomlin, Robert (ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse (Typological Studies in Language 11), 21–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2015. Three phenomena discriminating between ‘raising’ and ‘matching’ relative clauses. Semantics–Syntax Interface 2(1): 1–26.Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2004. On headed, headless and light-headed relatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22(1): 95–126.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1998. Rethinking the typology of relative clauses. Language Design 1: 59–86.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin. 2000. A constructional approach to clefts. Linguistics 38(6): 1101–1131.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1988. Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefts and Pseudo-Clefts. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 1984. Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Remarkable subjects in Malagasy. In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, 247–301. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. and Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63–99.Google Scholar
Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74(2): 245–273.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 2000. When subjects behave like objects: An analysis of the merging of S and O in sentence focus constructions across languages. Studies in Language 24(3): 611–682.Google Scholar
Pavey, Emma L. 2004. The English It-Cleft Construction: A Role and Reference Grammar Analysis. Unpublished dissertation, University of Sussex.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1999. A typology of the interaction of focus structure and syntax. In Raxilina, Ekatarina and Testelec, Jakov (eds.), Typology and the Theory of Language: From Description to Explanation, 511–524. Moscow: Languages of Russian Culture.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2005. Exploring the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2012. Some issues in the linking between syntax and semantics in relative clauses. In Comrie, Bernard and Estrada-Fernández, Zarina (eds.), Relative Clauses in Languages of the Americas: A Typological Overview, Typological Studies in Language 102, 47–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert and LaPolla, Randy. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
References
Allwood, Jens S. 1982. The complex NP constraints in Swedish. In Engdahl, E. and Ejerhed, E. (eds.), Readings on Unbounded Dependencies in Scandinavian Languages, 15–32. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 1993. Belhare subordination and the theory of topic. In Ebert, K. H. (ed.), Studies in Clause Linkage, 23–55. Papers from the First Köln-Zürich Workshop. Zürich.Google Scholar
Chaves, Rui P. 2013. An expectation-based account of subject islands and parasitism. Journal of Linguistics 49: 285–327.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, S. R. and Kiparski, P. (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 232–285. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Deane, Paul. 1991. Limits to attention: A cognitive theory of island phenomena. Cognitive Linguistics 2: 1–63.Google Scholar
Deane, Paul. 1992. Grammar in Mind and Brain: Explorations in Cognitive Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1973. On the Nature of Island Constraints. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2007. Information Structure: The Syntax–Discourse Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi and Lappin, Shalom. 1979. Dominance and the functional explanation of island phenomena. Theoretical Linguistics 6: 41–86.Google Scholar
Fujii, Tomohiro and Takita, Kensuke. 2007. Wh-adverbials in-situ, their island-(in)sensitivity and the role of demonstratives in wh-in-situ licensing. Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 3(1): 107–126.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Haig, John. 1996. Subjacency and Japanese grammar: A functional account. Studies in Language 20: 53–92.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Nobuko. 1981. A Lexical Interpretive Theory with Emphasis on the Role of Subject. PhD dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Nobuko. 1985. On the so-called ‘zero pronouns’ in Japanese. The Linguistic Review 4: 289–341.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Yoko. 1989. Questioning vs. identifying: A functionalist analysis of the [a candidate that which professor recommended was hired?] construction in Japanese. In Hall, K., Meacham, M. and Shapiro, R. (eds.), Proceedings of the 15th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 138–149. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip. 2007. Retrievability and gradience in filler-gap dependencies. In Elliott, M., Kirby, J., Sawada, O., Staraki, E. and Yoon, S. (eds.), Proceedings from the Main Session of the Forty-Third Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: Vol. 43–1, 109–123. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Hong, Sun-ho. 2003. On island constraints in Korean. In Iverson, G. K. and Ahn, S.-C. (eds.), Explorations in Korean Language and Linguistics, 107–125. Seoul: Hankook Publishing.Google Scholar
Inoue, Kazuko. 1976. Henkei bunpoo to nihongo (Transformational Grammar and Japanese). Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
Jensen, Anne. 2001. Sentence intertwining in Danish. In Engberg-Pedersen, E. and Harder, P. (eds.), Ikonicitet og struktur, 23–39. Preprint from Netværk for Funktionel Lingvistik, Department of English, University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Jin, Dawei. 2013. Information structure constraints and complex NP islands in Chinese. In Muller, Stefan (ed.), Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 110–120. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Jin, Dawei. 2019. A semantic account of quantifier-induced intervention effects in Chinese why-questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 43: 345–387.Google Scholar
Kempson, Ruth M. 1975. Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kluender, Robert. 1990. A neurophysiological investigation of wh-islands. In Hall, K., Koenig, J.-P., Meacham, M., Reinman, S. and Sutton, L. A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 187–204. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Kluender, Robert and Kutas, Marta. 1993. Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes 8(4): 573–633.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1987. Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse and Empathy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu and Takami, Ken-ichi. 1993. Grammar and Discourse Principles: Functional Syntax and GB Theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard and Saito, Mamoru. 1984. On the nature of proper government. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 235–289.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Yoshiko. 1997. Noun-Modifying Constructions in Japanese: A Frame Semantic Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1987. Wa and the wh phrase. In Hinds, J., Maynard, S. K. and Iwasaki, S. (eds.), Perspectives on Topicalization: The Case of Japanese wa, 185–217. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 1995. A-Bar Syntax: A Study in Movement Types. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Nakagawa, Natsuko, Asao, Yoshihiko and Nagaya, Naonori. 2008. Information structure and intonation of right-dislocation sentences in Japanese. Kyoto University Linguistic Research 27: 1–22.Google Scholar
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1986. Quantification in Syntax. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2000. An island effect in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9: 187–205.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on Variables In Syntax. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 1995. Focus Structure and Morphosyntax in Japanese: Wa and ga, and Word Order Flexibility. PhD dissertation, University at Buffalo (SUNY).Google Scholar
Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 2002. Functional theories of island phenomena: The case of Japanese. Studies in Language 26: 67–123.Google Scholar
Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 2011. The left periphery and focus structure in Japanese. In Nakamura, W. (ed.), New Perspectives in Role and Reference Grammar, 266–293. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Simon, Mutsuko E. 1989. An Analysis of the Postposing Construction in Japanese. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Takami, Ken-ichi. 1992. Preposition Stranding: From Syntactic to Functional Analyses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Takita, Kensuke. 2014. Pseudo-right dislocation, the bare-topic construction, and hanging topic constructions. Lingua 140: 137–157.Google Scholar
Tomioka, Satoshi. 2009. Why questions, presuppositions, and intervention effects. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 18: 253–271.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1996. Toward a functionalist account of so-called extraction constraints. In Devriendt, B., Goossens, L. and van der Auwera, J. (eds.), Complex Structures: A Functionalist Perspective, 29–60. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1998. The acquisition of wh-questions and the mechanisms of language acquisition. In Tomasello, M. (ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, 221–249. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1999. A typology of the interaction of focus structure and syntax. In Raxilina, E. and Testelec, Y. G. (eds.), Typology and Linguistics Theory: From Description to Explanation, 511–524. Moscow: Languages of Russian Culture.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2002. The development of subject–auxiliary inversion in English wh-questions: An alternative analysis. Journal of Child Language 29: 161–175.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2005. Exploring the Syntax–Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. and LaPolla, Randy J.. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yoshimura, Kyoko. 1992. LF subjacency condition in Japanese. Coyote Papers: Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 143–162.Google Scholar