References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 June 2019
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
- Relative ClausesStructure and Variation in Everyday English, pp. 272 - 309Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Aarts, F. 1993. Who, whom, that and ø in two corpora of spoken English. English Today 35: 19–22.Google Scholar
Abels, 2003. Successive cyclicity, antilocality and adposition stranding. PhD diss. University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Abels, 2010. Factivity in exclamatives is a presupposition. Studia Linguistica 64: 141–57.Google Scholar
Abels, 2012. The Italian left periphery: A view from locality. Linguistic Inquiry 43: 229–54.Google Scholar
Aboh, E. 2004 The Morphosyntax of Complement-Head Sequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aboh, E. 2005. Deriving relative and factive constructions in Kwa. In Proceedings of the XXX Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, Brugé, L., Giusti, G., Munaro, N., Schweikert, W. & Turano, G. (eds) 265–85. Venice: Cafoscarina.Google Scholar
Aboh, E. 2006. Complementation in Saramaccan and Gungbe: The case of C-type modal particles. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24: 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackema, P. 2010. Restrictions on subject extraction: A PF interface account. In Interfaces in Linguistics: New Research Perspectives, Folli, R. & Ulbrich, C. (eds) 225–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ackema, P. & Neeleman, A. 2003. Context-sensitive spell-out. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 681–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, L., Frazier, M. & Yoshida, M. 2014. Resumptive pronouns salvage island violations in forced-choice tasks. Poster presented to CUNY Sentence Processing Conference 2014.Google Scholar
Adger, D. & Smith, J. 2010. Variation in agreement: A lexical feature-based approach. Lingua 120: 1109–34.Google Scholar
Aelbrecht, L. & den Dikken, M. 2011. Doubling PPs in Flemish dialects. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 2011, Nouwen, R. & Elenbaas, M. (eds) 1–13. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Aelbrecht, L. & den Dikken, M. 2013. Preposition doubling in Flemish and its implications for the syntax of Dutch PPs. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 16: 33–68.Google Scholar
Åfarli, T. 1994. A promotion analysis of restrictive relative clauses. The Linguistic Review 11: 81–100.Google Scholar
Aissen, J. 1996. Pied piping, abstract agreement, and functional projections in Tzotzil. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 447–91.Google Scholar
Akiyama, T. 2002. The infinitival relative clause in English: An analysis based on the British National Corpus. PhD diss. Lancaster University.Google Scholar
Al-Banyan, A. & Preston, D. 1998. What is Standard American English? Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 33: 29–46.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Haegeman, L. & Staurou-Sëphakë, M. 2007. Noun Phrase in the Generative Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Law, P., Meinunger, A. & Wilder, C. 2000. The Syntax of Relative Clauses. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Alexopoulou, T. 2006. Resumption in relative clauses. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24: 57–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexopoulou, T. 2010. Truly intrusive: Resumptive pronominals in questions and relative clauses. Lingua 120: 485–505.Google Scholar
Alexopoulou, T. & Keller, F. 2002. Resumption and locality: a crosslinguistic experimental study. Chicago Linguistic Society Papers 38: 1–14.Google Scholar
Alexopoulou, T. & Keller, F. 2007. Locality, cyclicity and resumption: At the interface between the grammar and the human sentence processor. Language 83: 110–60.Google Scholar
Almeida, D. & Yoshida, M. 2007. A problem for the Preposition Stranding Generalization. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 349–62.Google Scholar
Angermeyer, P.S. & Singler, J.V. 2003. The case for politeness: Pronoun variation in coordinate NPs in object position in English. Language Variation and Change 15: 171–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aoun, J. 2000. Resumption and last resort. Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada 16: 13–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aoun, J., Choueiri, L. & Hornstein, N. 2001. Resumption, movement, and derivational economy. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 371–403.Google Scholar
Aoun, J. & Li, Y.A. 2003. Essays on the Representational and Derivational Nature of Grammar. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ariel, M. 1999. Cognitive universals and linguistic conventions: The case of resumptive pronouns. Studies in Language 23: 217–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, N. & Mackenzie, I.E. 2013. Standardization, Ideology and Linguistics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Arnold, D.J. 2004. Non-restrictive relative clauses in construction-based HPSG. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Müller, S. (ed.) 27–47. Stanford: CSLI publications.Google Scholar
Arnold, D.J. 2007. Non-restrictive relatives are not orphans. Journal of Linguistics 43: 271–309.Google Scholar
Asudeh, A. 2011a. Local grammaticality in syntactic production. In Language from a Cognitive Perspective: Grammar, Usage, and Processing, Bender, E.M. & Arnold, J.E. (eds) 51–79. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Asudeh, A. 2011b. Parallel processing and sentence comprehension difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes 26: 301–49.Google Scholar
Asudeh, A. 2011c. Towards a unified theory of resumption. In Resumptive Pronouns at the Interfaces, Rouveret, A. (ed.) 121–87. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badan, L. 2007. High and low periphery: A comparison between Italian and Chinese. PhD diss. University of Padua.Google Scholar
Badan, L. & del Gobbo, F. 2010. On the syntax of topic and focus in Chinese. In Mapping the Left Periphery. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 5, Benincà, P. & Munaro, N. (eds) 63–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baltin, M. 2010. The non-reality of doubly filled Comps. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 331–5.Google Scholar
Barbiers, S. 2008. Microvariation in syntactic doubling: An introduction. In Microvariation in Syntactic Doubling, Barbiers, S., Koeneman, O., Lekakou, M. & van der Ham, M. (eds) 403–17. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Barbiers, S. 2013. Geography and cartography of the left periphery: The case of Dutch and German imperatives. In Current Approaches to Limits and Areas in Dialectology, Carrilho, E., Magro, C. & Álvarez, X. (eds) 267–92. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Barbiers, S., Koeneman, O., Lekakou, M. & van der Ham, M. (eds) 2008. Microvariation in Syntactic Doubling. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Baron, D. 1984. Grammar and Good Taste: Reforming the American Language. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Barton, E. 1998. The grammar of telegraphic structures: Sentential and nonsentential derivation. Journal of English Linguistics 26: 37–67.Google Scholar
Battye, A. 1989. Free relatives, pseudo-free relatives and the syntax of CP in Italian. Rivista di Linguistica 1: 219–50.Google Scholar
Bayer, J. 2014. Syntactic and phonological properties of wh-operators and wh-movement in Bavarian. In Bavarian Syntax: Contributions to the Theory of Syntax, Grewendorf, G. & Weiss, H. (eds) 23–50. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bayer, J. 2015. Doubly-filled comp, wh-head movement, and derivational economy. In Representing Structure in Phonology and Syntax, van Oostendorp, M. & van Riemsdijk, H. (eds) 7–40. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bayer, J. 2016. Doubly-filled comp, wh-head-movement, and the doubly-filled-comp-filter. Ms. Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
Bayer, J. & Brandner, E. 2008. On wh-head-movement and the doubly-filled-comp-filter. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 26: 87–95.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. 2004a. Aspects of the low IP area. In The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 2, Rizzi, L. (ed.) 16–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. 2004b (ed). Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 3, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. 2006. Extending doubling to non-lexical domains: Complete vs. partial copying + deletion and related reconstruction issues. In Form, Structure and Grammar. A Festschrift Presented to Günther Grewendorf on Occasion of his 60th Birthday. Studia Grammatica 63, Brandt, P. and Fuss, E. (eds) 129–36. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Beltrama, A. 2013. Intrusive but not intruders. The processing of resumptive pronouns in Italian and English. Ms. University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Beltrama, A. & Xiang, M. 2016. Unacceptable but comprehensible: The facilitation effect of resumptive pronouns. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1: 1–24.Google Scholar
Benincà, P. 2001. The position of topic and focus in the left periphery. In Current Studies in Italian Syntax: Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi, Cinque, G. & Salvi, G. (eds) 39–64. Amsterdam: Elsevier-North Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benincà, P. 2003. La frase relativa in fiorentino antico. Paper presented to the V° Incontro di Dialettologia, University of Bristol, 26–7 September.Google Scholar
Benincà, P. 2006. A detailed map of the left periphery of Medieval Romance. In Crosslinguistic Research in Syntax and Semantics, Zanuttini, R., Campos, H., Herburger, E. & Portner, P. (eds) 53–86. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Benincà, P. 2010. La periferia sinistra. In Grammatica dell’Italiano Antico, Salvi, G. & Renzi, L. (eds) 27–59. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Benincà, P. 2012a. Lexical complementizers and headless relatives. In Functional Heads, Brugé, L., Cardinaletti, A., Giusti, G., Munaro, N. & Poletto, C. (eds) 29–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Benincà, P. 2012b. Frasi relative e strutture copulari. In Per Roberto Gusmani. Studi in ricordo, Orioles, V. & Borghello, P. (eds) 251–67. Udine: Forum editrice.Google Scholar
Benincà, P. & Cinque, G. 2010. La frase relativa. In Grammatica dell’Italiano Antico, Salvi, G. & Renzi, L. (eds) 469–507. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Benincà, P. & Cinque, G. 2014. Kind-defining relative clauses in the diachrony of Italian. In Diachrony and Dialects, Benincà, P., Ledgeway, A. & Vincent, N. (eds) 257–78. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Benincà, P. & Munaro, N. 2010 (eds). Mapping the Left Periphery. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 5, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Benincà, P. & Poletto, C. 2004. Topic, focus and V2: Defining the CP sublayers. In The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 2, Rizzi, L. (ed.) 52–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bennet, W. 1994. A case of syntactic change in English. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 29: 31–8.Google Scholar
Bennis, H. 2000. On the interpretation of functional categories. In Interface Strategies, Bennis, H., Everaert, M. & Reuland, E. (eds) 37–53. Amsterdam: KNAW publications.Google Scholar
Bergh, G. 1998. Double prepositions in English. In Advances in English Historical Linguistics, Fisiak, J. & Krygier, M. (eds) 1–13. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bergh, G. & Seppänen, A. 2000. Preposition stranding with wh-relatives: A historical survey. English Language and Linguistics 4: 295–316.Google Scholar
Berizzi, M. 2001. The theory of relative clauses and the English dialects. Undergraduate thesis, University of Padua.Google Scholar
Berizzi, M. 2010. Interrogatives and relatives in some varieties of English. PhD diss. University of Padova.Google Scholar
Berizzi, M. & Rossi, S. 2010. ‘Something here what made me think’: Some new views on relative what in the dialects of English. LangUE Proceedings 2009: 14–26, University of Essex.Google Scholar
Bernstein, J.B., McDaniel, D. & McKee, C. 1998. Resumptive pronoun strategies in English-speaking children. Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development 22: 58–68.Google Scholar
Bertollo, S. & Cavall, G. 2012. The syntax of Italian free relative clauses: An analysis. Generative Grammar in Geneva 8: 59–76.Google Scholar
Bever, T.G., Carroll, J.M. & Hartig, R. 1976. Analogy or ungrammatical sequences that are utterable and comprehensible are the origins of new grammars in language acquisition and linguistic evolution. In An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Disability, Bever, T.G., Katz, J.J. & Langendoen, D.T. (eds) 149–82. New York: T.Y. Crowell Press.Google Scholar
Bever, T.G. & Langendoen, D.T. 1972. The interaction of speech perception and grammatical structure in the evolution of language. In Linguistic Change and Generative Theory, Stockwell, R.P. & Macaulay, R.K.S. (eds) 32–95. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.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. 2015. Relative clauses and correlatives. In Syntax: Theory and Analysis Volume I, Kiss, T. & Alexiadou, A. (eds) 708–49. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bhatt, R. & Yoon, J. 1992. On the composition of Comp and parameters of V-2. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 10: 41–53.Google Scholar
Bianchi, V. 1999. Consequences of Antisymmetry: Headed Relative Clauses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, C. & Finegan, E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Birner, B.J. & Ward, G. 1998a. Information Status and Non-canonical Word Order in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Birner, B.J. & Ward, G. 1998b. Discourse and information structure. Ms. Northwestern University, IL.Google Scholar
Block, G.H. 1975. What’s new with English. ETC: A Review of General Semantics 32: 7–16.Google Scholar
Blythe, H. 2016. Resumption in English: An investigation of usage and acceptability. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 9: 156–83.Google Scholar
Bocci, G. 2004. Contrastive focalisation on topics and preverbal subjects in Italian. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 29: 3–60.Google Scholar
Bocci, G. 2007. Criterial positions and left periphery in Italian. Nanzan Linguistics 3: 35–70.Google Scholar
Bocci, G. 2013. The Syntax-Prosody Interface: A Cartographic Perspective with Evidence from Italian. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. 2003. Islands and Chains: Resumption as Derivational Residue. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Boef, E. 2013. Doubling in Relative Clauses: Aspects of Morphosyntactic Microvariation in Dutch. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Bondaruk, A. 1995. Resumptive pronouns in English and Polish. In Licensing in Syntax and Phonology, Gussmann, E. (ed.) 27–55. Lublin: Folium.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 Contrastive Linguistics: Prospects and Problems, Fisiak, J. (ed.) 1–18. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Borsley, R. D. 1997. Relative clauses and the theory of phrase structure. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 629–47.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 1997. The Syntax of Non-finite Complementation: An Economy Approach. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2005. On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP. Studia Linguistica 59: 1–45.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2008. What will you have, DP or NP? Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 37: 101–14.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2011. Rescue by PF deletion, traces as (non)interveners, and the that-trace effect. Linguistic Inquiry 42: 1–44.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2016. On the timing of labeling: Deducing Comp-trace effects, the Subject Condition, the Adjunct Condition, and tucking in from labeling. The Linguistic Review 33: 17–66Google Scholar
Boyland, J.T. 2001. Hypercorrect pronoun case in English? Cognitive processes that account for pronoun usage. In Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. (eds) 383–404. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Brame, M.K. 1967. A new analysis of the relative clause: Evidence for an interpretive theory. Unpublished ms. MIT.Google Scholar
Brame., M. K. 1976. Conjectures and Refutations in Syntax and Semantics. New York: Elsevier/ North-Holland.Google Scholar
Brandner, E. 2008. Patterns of doubling in Alemmanic. In Microvariation in Syntactic Doubling, Barbiers, S., Koeneman, O., Lekakou, M. & van der Ham, M. (eds) 353–80. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Breivik, L.E. 1997. Relative infinitives in English. Studia Neophilologica 69: 109–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. & Grimshaw, J. 1978. The syntax of free relatives in English. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 331–91.Google Scholar
Breul, C. 2000. Non-stranded preposition + relative who(m): Syntactic discussion and corpus-related problems. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 35: 137–51Google Scholar
Britain, D. 2008. Grammatical variation in England. In Language in the British Isles, Britain, D. (ed.) 75–104. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H. 2006. Extraction from subjects: Some remarks on Chomsky’s ‘On Phases’. In Organising Grammar, Broekhuis, H., Corver, N. & Hybreghts, R. (eds) 59–68. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H. 2008. Derivations and Evaluations: Object Shift in the Germanic Languages. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Brugé, L., Giusti, G., Munaro, N., Schweikert, W. & Turano, G. (eds) 2005. Proceedings of the XXX Incontro di Grammatica Generativa. Venice: Cafoscarina.Google Scholar
Büring, D. 1997. The meaning of Topic and Focus: The 59th Street Bridge Accent. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Büring, D. 1999. Topic. In Focus: Linguistic, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives, Bosch, P. & van der Sandt, R. (eds) 142–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Büring, D. 2003. On D-trees, beans and B-Accents. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 511–45.Google Scholar
Burke, I. 2017. Wicked which: The linking relative in Australian English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 37: 356–86.Google Scholar
Bylinina, L. 2013. Degree infinitival clauses. Proceedings of the Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference 23: 394–411.Google Scholar
Cable, S. 2010. Against the existence of pied-piping: Evidence from Tlingit. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 367–86.Google Scholar
Camacho, J. 2002. Wh-doubling: Implications for the syntax of wh-movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 157–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cann, R., Kaplan, T. & Kempson, R. 2005. Data at the grammar–pragmatics interface: The case of resumptive pronouns in English. Lingua 115: 1551–78.Google Scholar
Caponigro, I. 2002. Free relatives as DPs with a silent D and a CP complement. In Proceedings of WECOL 2000, Samiian, V. (ed.) 140–50. Fresno CA: California State University.Google Scholar
Caponigro, I. & Pearl, L. 2008. Silent prepositions: Evidence from free relatives. In The Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P, Asbury, A., Dotlačil, J., Gehrke, B. & Nouwen, R. (eds) 365–85. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Caponigro, I. & Pearl, L. 2009. The nominal nature of where, when and how: Evidence from free relatives. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 155–64.Google Scholar
Caponigro, I., Torrence, H. & Cisneros, C. 2013. Free relative clauses in two Mixtec languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 79: 61–96.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. 2004. Towards a cartography of syntactic positions. In The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 2, Rizzi, L. (ed.) 115–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. 2009 On a (wh-)moved topic in Italian, compared to Germanic. Linguistics Today 141: 3–40.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, C., Cinque, G. & Endo, Y. (eds) 2014. On Peripheries: Exploring Clause Initial and Clause Final Positions. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobe Publishing.Google Scholar
Casielles-Suárez, E. 2004. The Syntax-Information Structure Interface: Evidence from Spanish and English. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Castillo, C. 2009. English to-infinitive relative clauses. Folia Linguistica Historica 27: 135–53.Google Scholar
Cecchetto, C. 2005. Reconstruction in relative clauses and the copy theory of traces. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 5: 73–103.Google Scholar
Chao, W. & Sells, P. 1983. On the interpretation of resumptive pronouns. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 13: 47–61.Google Scholar
Chaves, R. 2012. On the grammar of extraction and co-ordination. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30: 465–512.Google Scholar
Chaves, R. 2013. An expectation-based account of subject islands and parasitism. Journal of Linguistics 49: 285–327.Google Scholar
Cheng, L. 2007. Verb copying in Mandarin Chinese. In The Copy Theory of Movement, Corver, N. & Nunes, J. (eds) 151–74. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cheshire, J. 1993. Non-standard English and dialect levelling. In Real English, Milroy, J. & Milroy, L. (eds) 53–96. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Cheshire, J., Adger, D. & Fox, S. 2013. Relative who and the actuation problem. Lingua 2013: 51–77.Google Scholar
Chiba, S. 1972. Another case for ‘Relative clause formation is a copying rule’. Studies in English Linguistics 1: 1–12.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1972. Some empirical issues in the theory of transformational grammar. In Goals of Linguistic Theory, Peters, P.S. (ed.) 63–130. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Inc.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, Anderson, S.R. & Kiparsky, P. (eds) 232–86. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1977. On wh-movement. In Formal Syntax, Culicover, P.W., Wasow, T. & Akmajian, A. (eds) 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1998. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15; also published in Martin, R., Michaels, D. and Uriagereka, J. (eds) (2000), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalism in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in language, Kenstowicz, M. (ed.) 1–52. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Interfaces + Recursion = Language?, Sauerland, U. & Gärtner, H.-M. (eds) 1–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2008. On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Freidin, R., Otero, C. & Zubizarreta, M.L. (eds) 133–65. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2015. Problems of projection: Extensions. In Structures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honor of Adriana Belletti, di Domenico, E., Hamann, C., & Metteini, S. (eds) 1–16. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chung, S., Ladusaw, W.A. & McCloskey, J. 2011. Sluicing: Between structure and inference. In Representing Language: Essays in Honor of Judith Aissen, Gutiérrez- Bravo, R., Mikkelsen, L. & Potsdam, E. (eds) 31–50. California Digital Library eScholarship Repository, Linguistic Research Center, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 1978. Towards a unified treatment of island constraints. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of Linguists, Dressler, W.U. & Meid, W. (eds) 344–8. Innsbrücker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 2002. The Structure of DP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 1, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 2008. Two types of non-restrictive relatives. In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 7: 99–137.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 2013. Typological Studies. Word Order and Relative Clauses. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 2017. On the double-headed analysis of ‘headless’ relative clauses. Ms. University of Venice.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. & Rizzi., L. 2008. The cartography of syntactic structures. Studies in Linguistics 2: 42–58.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. & Rizzi., L. 2010a. The cartography of syntactic structures. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammatical Analysis, Heine, B. & Narrog, H. (eds) 51–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. & Rizzi., L. 2010b (eds). Mapping Spatial PPs. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 6, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Citko, B. 2000. Parallel merge and the syntax of free relatives. PhD diss. State University of New York at Stony Brook.Google Scholar
Citko, B. 2001. Deletion under identity in relative clauses. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 31: 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. 2011. Symmetry in Syntax: Merge, Move and Labels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clemens, L.E., Morgan, A.M., Polinsky, M. & Xiang, M. 2012. Listening to resumptives: An auditory experiment. Poster presented to the 25th Annual CUNY conference on Human Sentence Processing, City University of New York.Google Scholar
Collins, C. 2017. The distribution of negated quantifier phrases in English. Ms. New York University.Google Scholar
Collins, C. & Postal, P.M. 2012. Imposters: A Study of Pronominal Agreement. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Collins, C. & Radford, A. 2015. Gaps, ghosts and gapless relatives in spoken English. Studia Linguistica 69: 191–235.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1999. Relative clauses: Structure and typology on the periphery of standard English. In The Clause in English, Collins, P. & Lee, D. (eds) 81–91. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 2002. Typology and language acquisition: The case of relative clauses. In Typology and Second Language Acquisition, Ramat, A.G. (ed.) 19–37. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Contreras, H. 1991. On resumptive pronouns. In Current Studies in Spanish Linguistics, Campos, H. & Martinez-Gil, F. (eds) 143–63. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Coppock, E. 2006. Alignment in syntactic blending. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 53: 239–55.Google Scholar
Coppock, E. 2010. Parallel encoding of alternatives in sentence production: Evidence from syntactic blends. Language and Cognitive Processes 25: 38–49.Google Scholar
Cornilescu, A. 1981. Non-restrictive relative clauses: An essay in semantic description. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 26: 41–67.Google Scholar
Corver, N. 1992. On deriving certain left branch extraction asymmetries: A case study in parametric syntax. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 22: 67–84.Google Scholar
Cowart, W. 1997 Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgments. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Cowper, E. 1987. Pied piping, feature percolation, and the structure of the noun phrase. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 32: 321–38.Google Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, J. 2010. The Syntax of Ellipsis: Evidence from Dutch Dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, J. & den Dikken, M. 2006. Ellipsis and EPP repair. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 653–64.Google Scholar
Creswell, C. 2002. Resumptive pronouns, wh-island violations, and sentence production. In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Tree-Adjoining Grammar and Related Frameworks (TAG+6), 101–9. Venice: Università di Venezia.Google Scholar
Cruschina, S. 2006. Informational focus in Sicilian and the left periphery. In Phases of Interpretation, Frascarelli, M. (ed.) 363–85. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cruschina, S. 2008. Discourse-related features and the syntax of peripheral positions: A comparative study of Sicilian and other Romance languages. PhD diss. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Cruschina, S. 2010a. Fronting as focalization in Sicilian. In Syntactic Variation: The Dialects of Italy, D’Alessandro, R., Ledgeway, A. & Roberts, I. (eds) 247–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cruschina, S. 2010b. Aspetti morfologici e sintattici degli avverbi in siciliano. In Quaderni di Lavoro ASIt n.11: Studi sui Dialetti della Sicilia, Garzonio, J. (ed.) 21–42. Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar
Cruschina, S. 2011a. On the syntactic status of sentential adverbs and modal particles. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 63: 345–57.Google Scholar
Cruschina, S. 2011b. Grammaticalization and the expression of evidentiality and epistemicity in Italian and in Sicilian. Unpublished handout, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Cruschina, S. 2012. Discourse-Related Features and Functional Projections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cruschina, S. & Remberger, E.-M. 2008. Hearsay and reported speech: Evidentiality in Romance. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 33: 99–120.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. 1992. The adverb effect: Evidence against ECP accounts of the that-t effect. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 23: 97–111.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. 1993. Evidence against ECP accounts of the that-t effect. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 557–61.Google Scholar
Culy, C. 1996. Null objects in English recipes. Language Variation and Change 8: 91–124.Google Scholar
Cutting, J.C. & Bock, K. 1997. That’s the way the cookie bounces: Syntactic and semantic components of experimentally elicited idiom blends. Memory and Cognition 25: 57–71.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. 2010. Naive v. expert intuitions: An empirical study of acceptability judgments. The Linguistic Review 27: 1–23.Google Scholar
Dadan, M. 2015. Preposition omission in sluicing: Teasing apart LF-copying and PF- deletion in a hybrid system. Poster presented to 46th meeting of the North East Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Danckaert, L. 2011. On the left periphery of Latin embedded clauses. PhD diss. University of Ghent.Google Scholar
Decamp, D. 1972. Hypercorrection and rule generalization. Language in Society 1: 87–90.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. 2003. Implicit and explicit learning. In Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, Doughty, C. & Long, M. (eds) 313–48. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. 2007. Skill acquisition theory. In Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction, VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds) 97–113. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. 2010. Interview in Michigan State University Working Papers in Second Language Studies 2: 14–17.Google Scholar
Dekkers, J., Leeuw, F. & van der Weijer, J. (eds) 2000. Optimality Theory: Phonology, Syntax and Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Sprouse, R.A. & Anderson, B. 1998. Interlanguage A-bar dependencies: Binding construals, null prepositions and Universal Grammar. Second Language Research 14: 341–58.Google Scholar
Demirdache, H. 1991. Resumptive chains in restrictive relatives, appositives, and dislocation structures. PhD diss. MIT.Google Scholar
Demonte, V. & Fernández Soriano, O. 2009. Force and finiteness in the Spanish complementizer system. Probus 21: 23–49.Google Scholar
Demonte, V. & Fernández Soriano, O. 2013. El que citativo en español y otros elementos de la periferia oracional: Variación inter e intralingüística. In Autour de ‘que’, Jakob, D. & Plooj, K. (eds) 47–69. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Demonte, V. & Fernández Soriano, O. 2014. Evidentiality and illocutionary force: Spanish matrix que at the syntax-semantics interface. Linguistics Today 214: 217–51.Google Scholar
Denison, D. 1985. Why Old English had no prepositional passive. English Studies 3: 189–204.Google Scholar
Dickey, M.W. 1996. Constraints on the sentence processor and the distribution of resumptive pronouns. In University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 19: 157–192.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. Chicago Linguistic Society Papers 29: 55–65.Google Scholar
Donati, C. 2006. On wh-movement. In Wh-Movement: Moving On, Cheng, L. & Corver, N. (eds) 21–46. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Donati, C. & Cecchetto, C. 2011. Relabeling Heads: A unified account for relativization structures. Linguistic Inquiry 42: 519–60.Google Scholar
Douglas, J. 2016. The syntactic structures of relativization. PhD diss. University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Douglas, J. 2017. Unifying the that-trace and anti-that-trace effects. Glossa 2: 1–28.Google Scholar
Doyle, G. 2009 Whoever vs. Whomever! Cases Collide! Match of the Century! Motivated Grammar: Prescriptivism Must Die! Weblog posting. WordPress.com. 13 Oct. 2009. http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/whoever-v-whomever-cases-collide-match-of-the-centuryGoogle Scholar
Drummond, A., Hornstein, N. & Lasnik, H. 2010. A puzzle about P-stranding and a possible solution. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 689–92.Google Scholar
Dubinsky, S. 1997. Infinitival relative clauses in English: An antisymmetric approach to discontinuous constituency. Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics 96: 82–93. Cornell University: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Durrleman, S. 2008. The Syntax of Jamaican Creole: A Cartographic Perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Emonds, J.E. 1976. A Transformational Approach to English Syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Emonds, J.E. 1979. Appositive relatives have no properties. Linguistic Inquiry 10: 211–43.Google Scholar
Emonds, J.E. 1986. Grammatically deviant prestige constructions. In A Festschrift for Sol Saporta, Brame, M., Contreras, H. & Newmeyer, F. (eds) 92–129. Seattle: Noit Amrofer.Google Scholar
Emonds, J.E. & Faarlund, J.T. 2014. English: The Language of the Vikings. Olomouc: Palacký University. http://anglistika.upol.cz/vikings2014Google Scholar
Endo, Y. 2007. Locality and Information Structure: A Cartographic Approach to Japanese. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Endo, Y. 2014. Variations of why, how come and new topic in C. Handout for talk presented to Variation in C Workshop, October 21, 2014, Venice.Google Scholar
Endo, Y. 2015a Two ReasonPs: What are*(n’t) you coming to the US for? In Beyond Functional Sequence: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 10, Shlonsky, Ur. (ed.) 220–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Endo, Y. 2015b. Why, what … for, how come and why the hell. In Papers from the International Spring Forum of the English Linguistic Society of Japan 7: 10–16.Google Scholar
Endo, Y. 2017. Inter-speaker variation and subject drop in how come questions in English. Ms. Kanda University of International Studies (to appear in Linguistic Variation).Google Scholar
Engdahl, E. 1980. The syntax and semantics of questions in Swedish. PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Engdahl, E. 1982. Restrictions on unbounded dependencies in Swedish. In Readings on Unbounded Dependencies in Scandinavian Languages, Engdahl, E. & Ejerhed, E. (eds) 151–74. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Erdmann, P. 1980. On the history of subject contact relatives in English. Folia Linguistica Historica 1: 139–70.Google Scholar
Erlewine, M.Y. 2014. Why the null complementizer is special in the English that-trace effect. Ms. MIT. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002029.Google Scholar
Erlewine, M.Y. 2017. Why the null complementizer is special in complementiser-trace effects. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 80: 371–80.Google Scholar
Erteshik-Shir, N. 1992. Resumptive pronouns in islands. In Island Constraints: Theory, Acquisition and Processing, Goodluck, H. & Rochemont, M. (eds) 89–108. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Fabb, N. 1990. The difference between English restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses. Journal of Linguistics 26: 55–77.Google Scholar
Fábregas, A. & Jiménez-Fernández, Á. 2012. Extraction from fake adjuncts and first phase syntax. Poster presented at Going Romance, KU Leuven, 1–8 December.Google Scholar
Fay, D. 1981. Substitutions and splices: A study of sentence blends. Linguistics 19: 717–49.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. & Swets, B. 2005. The production and comprehension of resumptive pronouns in relative clause ‘island’ contexts. In Twenty-First Century Psycholinguistics: Four Cornerstones, Cutler, A. (ed.) 263–78. Mahway NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Ferreira, V.S. 2003. The persistence of optional complementiser production: Why saying ‘that’ is not saying ‘that’ at all. Journal of Memory and Language 48: 379–98.Google Scholar
Ferreiro, E., Othenin-Girard, C., Chipman, H. & Sinclair, H. 1976. How do children handle relative clauses? A study in comparative developmental psycholinguistics. Archives de Psychologie 45: 229–66.Google Scholar
Filppula, M. 2005. Irish English: Morphology and syntax. In A Comparative Grammar of British English Dialects, Kortmann, B., Herrmann, T., Pietsch, L. & Wagner, S. (eds) 73–101. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Fiorentino, G. 2007. European relative clauses and the uniqueness of the relative pronoun type. Rivista di Linguistica 19: 263–91.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. (1992). Syntax. In The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. II, Blake, N. (ed.) 207–408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fleischer, J. 2002. Preposition stranding in German dialects. In Syntactic Microvariation, Barbiers, S., Cornips, L. & van der Kleij, S. (eds) 116–51. Amsterdam: Meertens Institut.Google Scholar
Fortin, C. 2007. Indonesian Sluicing and Verb Phrase Ellipsis: Description and explanation in a Minimalist framework. PhD diss. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Fox, D. & Lasnik, H. 2003. Successive-cyclic movement and island repair: The difference between Sluicing and VP-Ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 143–54.Google Scholar
Franco, I. 2009. Verbs, subjects and stylistic fronting: A comparative analysis of the interaction of CP properties with verb movement and subject positions in Icelandic and Old Italian. PhD diss. University of Siena.Google Scholar
Franks, S. 2005. What is that? Indiana University Working Papers in Linguistics 5: 33–62.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, M. & Hinterhölzl, R. 2007. Types of topics in German and Italian. In On Information Structure, Meaning and Form, Winkler, S. & Schwabe, K. (eds) 86–116. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, M. & Puglielli, A. 2010. Focus in the Force-Fin system: Information structure in Cushitic Languages. In Focus strategies: Evidence from African languages, Aboh, E., Hartmann, K. & Zimmermann, M. (eds) 161–84. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Freidin, R. & Vergnaud, J.R. 2001. Exquisite connections: Some remarks on the evolution of linguistic theory. Lingua 111: 639–66.Google Scholar
Frey, W. 2004. Notes on the syntax and pragmatics of German left dislocation. In The Syntax and Semantics of the Left Periphery, Lohnstein, H. & Trissler, S. (eds) 163–209. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Frey, W. 2005. Pragmatic properties of certain German and English left peripheral constructions. Linguistics 43: 89–129.Google Scholar
Friedmann, N., Novogrodsky, R., Szterman, R. & Preminger, O. 2008. Resumptive pronouns as a last resort when movement is impaired: Relative clauses in hearing impairment. In Current Issues in Generative Hebrew Linguistics 7: 267–90.Google Scholar
Garzonio, J. 2005. Struttura informazionale e soggetti nulli in Russo: Un approccio cartografico. PhD diss., University of Padua.Google Scholar
Geisler, C. 1998. Infinitival relative clauses in spoken discourse. Language Variation and Change 10: 23–41.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, E. 2009. Renewal in the left periphery: Economy and the complementiser layer. Transactions of the Philological Society 107: 131–95.Google Scholar
Geluykens, R. (1992) From Discourse Process to Grammatical Construction: On Left Dislocation in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68: 1–76.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. 2000. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Image, Language, Brain, Marantz, A., Miyashita, Y., & O’Neil, W. (eds) 95–126. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Giorgi, A. 2014. Prosodic signals as syntactic formatives in the left periphery. In On Peripheries: Exploring Clause Initial and Clause Final Positions, Cardinaletti, C., Cinque, G. & Endo, Y. (eds) 161–88. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobe Publishing.Google Scholar
Girard, G. & Malan, N. 1999. Postmodification by infinitive clauses: Something about which to have a bit of a discussion. English Linguistics 10: 31–42.Google Scholar
Glaser, E. & Frey, N. 2007. Doubling phenomena in Swiss German dialects. European Dialect Syntax Project: Papers presented at the Workshop on Syntactic Doubling, Amsterdam, March 2006, Barbiers, S., van der Ham, M. & Lekakou, M. (eds) 1–14. www.meertens.knaw.nl/projecten/edisynGoogle Scholar
Gordon, P., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. 2001. Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27: 1411–23.Google Scholar
Gordon, P., Hendrick, R., & Levine, W.H. 2002. Memory-load interference in syntactic processing. Psychological Science 13: 425–30.Google Scholar
Gordon, T.W. & Patterson, G.W. 1979 Prepositional loss in English. Journal of English Linguistics 13: 1–23.Google Scholar
Grano, T. 2006. ‘Me and her’ meets ‘he and I’: Case, person and linear ordering in English coordinated pronouns. Honors thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Grant, V. (ed.) 1934–76. The Scottish National Dictionary. Edinburgh: Scottish National Dictionary Foundation.Google Scholar
Gregory, M. & Michaelis, L. 2001. Topicalization and Left Dislocation: A functional opposition revisited. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1665–1706.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, G. 2002. Left dislocation as movement. Georgetown University Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics 2: 31–81.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, G. & Poletto, C. 2009. The hybrid complementizer system of Cimbrian. Studies in Linguistics 3: 181–94.Google Scholar
Grice, H. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and Semantics: Vol. 3. Speech Acts, Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds) 41–68. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. 2002. Preposition stranding in English: Predicting speakers’ behaviour. In Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics: Vol. 12, Samiian, V. (ed.) 230–41. Fresno CA: California State University.Google Scholar
Gries, S., Hampe, B. & Schönefeld, D. 2005. Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16: 635–76.Google 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. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 5: 216–24.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. 1979. Complement selection and the lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry 10: 279–326.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. 2000. Locality and extended projection. In Lexical Specification and Insertion, Coopmans, P., Everaert, M. & Grimshaw, J. (eds) 115–33. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grodner, D. & Gibson, E. 2005. Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input for sentential complexity. Cognitive Science 29: 261–90.Google Scholar
Grolla, E. 2005. Resumptive pronouns as last resort: Implications for language acquisition. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 11: 71–84.Google Scholar
Groos, A. & van Riemsdijk, H. 1981. Matching effects in free relatives: A parameter of core grammar. In Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar, Belletti, A., Brandi, L. & Rizzi, L. (eds) 171–216. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.Google Scholar
Grosu, A. 1996. The proper analysis of missing-P free relative constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 257–93.Google Scholar
Grosu, A. 2003. A unified theory of standard and transparent free relatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 247–331.Google Scholar
Grosu, A. & Landman, F. 1998. Strange relatives of the third kind. Natural Language Semantics 6: 125–70.Google Scholar
Guasti, M.T., Thornton, R. & Wexler, K. 1995. Negation in children’s questions: The case of English. Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development 19: 228–39.Google Scholar
Gundel, J.K. 1975. Left dislocation and the role of topic-comment structure in linguistic theory. Ohio State Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 72–131.Google Scholar
Gundel, J.K. 1988. Universals of topic-comment structure. In Studies in Syntactic Typology, Hammond, M., Moravcsik, E.A. & Werth, J. (eds) 209–42. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Günzberg-Kerbel, N., Shvimer, L. & Friedmann, N. 2008. ‘Take the hen that the cow kissed the hen’: The acquisition of comprehension and production of various relative clauses in Hebrew. Language and Brain 7: 23–43.Google Scholar
Guy, G.R. & Bayley, R. 1995. On the choice of relative pronouns in English. American Speech 70: 148–62.Google Scholar
van Gysel, J. 2015. Preposition doubling in English. The structure of English prepositional phrases. Bachelor’s thesis, University of Ghent.Google Scholar
Ha, S. 2010. A prosody analysis of the comp-trace effect. English Language and Linguistics 16: 109–33.Google Scholar
Hackl, M. & Nissenbaum, J. 2012. A modal ambiguity in for-infinitival relative clauses. Natural Language Semantics 20: 59–81.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 1987. Complement ellipsis in English: Or, how to cook without objects. In Studies in Honour of René Derolez, Simon-Vandenbergen, A.M. (ed.) 248–61. Ghent: University of Ghent.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 1990a. Non-overt subjects in diary contexts. In Grammar in Progress, Mascarò, J. & Nespor, M. (eds) 167–74. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 1992. Theory and Description in Generative Grammar: A Case Study of West Flemish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 1994. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory (2nd edn). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 1996. Verb second, the split CP and null subjects in early Dutch finite clauses. Geneva Generative Papers 4: 133–75. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001059Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 1997. Register variation, truncation and subject omission in English and in French. English Language and Linguistics 1: 233–70.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 2000a. Inversion, non-adjacent inversion and adjuncts in CP. In Transactions of the Philological Society 98: 121–60.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 2000b. Adult null subjects in non pro-drop languages. In The Acquisition of Syntax, Friedemann, M.-A. & Rizzi, L. (eds) 129–69. London: Addison, Wesley and Longman.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 2003. Notes on long adverbial fronting in English and the left periphery. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 640–9.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 2004. Topicalization, CLLD and the left periphery. In Proceedings of the Dislocated Elements Workshop, Shaer, B., Frey, W. & Maienborn, C. (eds) 157–92. Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 2006a. Argument fronting in English, Romance CLLD and the left periphery. In Negation, Tense and Clausal Architecture: Cross-linguistic Investigations, Zanuttini, R., Campos, H., Herburger, E., & Portner, P. (eds) 27–52. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 2006b. Conditionals, factives and the left periphery. Lingua 116: 1651–69.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 2007. Operator movement and topicalization in adverbial clauses. Folia Linguistica 18: 485–502.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 2009. The movement analysis of temporal adverbial clauses. English Language and Linguistics 13: 385–408.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 2012. Adverbial Clauses, Main Clause Phenomena, and Composition of the Left Periphery. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 2013. The syntax of registers: Diary subject omission and the privilege of the root. Lingua 130: 88–110.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. & Danckaert, L. 2017. Variation in English subject extraction: The case of hyperactive subjects. Ms. University of GhentGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L. & Greco, C. 2016. ‘V > 2’. Handout for paper presented to the conference on ‘Rethinking Verb Second’, University of Cambridge, 22–4 March.+2’.+Handout+for+paper+presented+to+the+conference+on+‘Rethinking+Verb+Second’,+University+of+Cambridge,+22–4+March.>Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. & Greco, C. 2017. Initial adverbial clauses and West Flemish V3. Ms. University of Ghent.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. & Guéron, J. 1999. English Grammar: A Generative Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. & Ihsane, T. 1999. Subject ellipsis in embedded clauses in English. Journal of English Language and Linguistics 3: 117–45.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. & Ihsane, T. 2001. Adult null subjects in the non-pro drop languages: Two diary dialects. Language Acquisition 9: 329–46.Google 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
Hale, K. & Keyser, S.J. 1991. On the syntax of argument structure. Lexicon Project Working Papers, MIT, Center for Cognitive Science, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Hale, K. & Keyser, S.J. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of semantic relations. In The View from Building 20, Hale, K. & Keyser, S.J. (eds) 53–109. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, K. & Keyser, S.J. 1994. Constraints on argument structure. In Heads, Projections and Learnability, vol. 1, Lust, B., Suñer, M. & Whitman, J. (eds) 53–71. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Han, C.-H. 1998. The structure and interpretation of imperatives: Mood and force in universal grammar. PhD diss. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Han, C., Elouazizi, N., Galeano, C., Görgülü, E., Hedberg, N., Jeffrey, M., Kim, K. & Kirby, S. 2012. Processing strategies and resumptive pronouns in English. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 30: 153–61.Google Scholar
Harbert, W. 1983. On the nature of the matching parameter. The Linguistic Review 2: 237–84.Google Scholar
Harris, J. 1993. The grammar of Irish English. In Real English, Milroy, J. & Milroy, L. (eds) 139–86. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. 1999. Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars. Language 75: 244–85.Google Scholar
Heestand, D., Xiang, M. & Polinsky, M. 2011. Resumption still does not rescue islands. Linguistic Inquiry 42: 138–52.Google Scholar
Heim, I. 1987. Where does the definiteness restriction apply? Evidence from the definiteness of variables. In The Representation of (In)definiteness, Reuland, E. & ter Meulen, A. (eds) 21–42. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hellmantel, M. 2002. Interactions in the Dutch adpositional domain. PhD diss. University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Henry, A. 1995. Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect Variation and Parameter Setting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Herrmann, T. 2003. Relative clauses in dialects of English: A typological approach. PhD diss. Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, Freiburg.Google Scholar
Herrmann, T. 2005. Relative clauses in English dialects of the British Isles. In A Comparative Grammar of British English Dialects, Kortmann, B., Herrmann, T., Pietsch, L. & Wagner, S. (eds) 21–124. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Hicks, C. 2010. Morphosyntactic doubling in code switching. MA thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. 2013. Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, L., Smzrecsanyl, B. & Bohmann, A. 2015. Which-hunting and the Standard English relative clause. Language 91: 806–36.Google Scholar
Hirschbühler, P. 1976. Two analyses of free relatives in French. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 6: 137–52.Google Scholar
Hirschbühler, P. 1978. The syntax and semantics of wh-constructions. PhD diss. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Hirschbühler, P. & Rivero, M.L. 1983. Remarks on free relatives and matching phenomena. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 505–19.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. 2005. Variable vs. categorical effects: Preposition pied piping and stranding in British English relative clauses. Journal of English Linguistics 33: 257–97.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. 2011. Preposition Placement in English: A Usage-based Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, P. & Norcliffe, E. 2013. Does resumption facilitate sentence comprehension? In The Core and the Periphery: Data-driven Perspectives on Syntax Inspired by Ivan A. Sag, Hofmeister, P. & Norcliffe, E. (eds) 225–46. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Hokari, T. & Wakabayashi, S. 2009. Null prepositions in wh-questions and passives. In Proceedings of the 10th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2009), Bowles, M.. Ionin, T., Montrul, S. & Tremblay, A. (eds) 35–45. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Hoomchamlong, Y. 1991. Some issues in Thai anaphora: A Government and Binding approach. PhD diss. University of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. 2007. Pronouns in a minimalist setting. In The Copy Theory of Movement, Corver, N. & Nunes, J. (eds) 351–85. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N., Lasnik, H. & Uriagereka, J. 2003. The dynamics of islands: Speculations on the locality of movement. Linguistic Analysis 33: 149–75.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. & Weinberg, A. 1981. Case theory and preposition stranding. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 55–91.Google Scholar
Horsey, R. 1998. Null arguments in English registers: A Minimalist account. BA thesis, La Trobe University.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. PhD diss. MIT.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. 1984. Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. 1988. English Grammar: An Outline. 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
Hulsey, S. & Sauerland., U. 2006. Sorting out relative clauses. Natural Language Semantics 14: 111−37.Google Scholar
Ihalainen, O. 1980. Relative clauses in the dialect of Somerset. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 81: 187–96.Google Scholar
Inada, S. 2007. Towards a syntax of two types of relative clauses. Linguistic Research 23: 1–41.Google Scholar
Izvorski, R. 2001. Free adjunct free relatives. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 19: 232–45.Google Scholar
Jacobson, P. 1995. On the quantificational force of English free relatives. In Quantification in Natural Languages, Bach, E., Jelinek, E., Kratzer, A. & Partee, B.H. (eds) 451–86. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Jacobsson, B. 1994. Nonrestrictive relative that-clauses revisited. Studia Neophilologica 66: 181–95.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T.F. 2010. Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 61: 23–62.Google Scholar
Janda, R.J. 1985. Note-taking English as a simplified register. Discourse Processes 8: 437–54.Google Scholar
Jaworska, E. 1986. Prepositional phrases as subjects and objects. Journal of Linguistics 22: 355–74.Google Scholar
Jayaseelan, K.A. 2008. Topic, focus and adverb positions in clause structure. Nanzan Linguistics 4: 43–68.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1927. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, vol. III. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1949. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part III (Syntax. 2nd Volume). London: Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
Jiménez-Fernández, Á. 2011. On the order of multiple topics and discourse-feature inheritance. Dilbilim Araştırmaları 1: 5–32.Google Scholar
Jiménez-Fernández, Á. 2015. Towards a typology of focus: Subject position and microvariation at the discourse–syntax interface. Ampersand 2: 49–60.Google Scholar
Johansson, C. & Geisler, C. 1998. Pied piping in spoken English. In Explorations in Corpus Linguistics, Renouf, A. (ed.) 67–82. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. 2001. What VP ellipsis can do, and what it can’t, but not why. In The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, Baltin, M. & Collins, C. (eds) 439–79. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jónsson, J.G. 2008. Preposition reduplication in Icelandic. In Microvariation in Syntactic Doubling, Barbiers, S., Koeneman, O., Lekakou, M. & van der Ham, M. (eds) 403–17. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Jourdain, S. 1996. The case of null-prep in the interlanguage of adult learners of French. PhD diss. Indiana University.Google Scholar
Jurka, J. 2010. The importance of being a complement: CED effects revisited. PhD diss. University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Jurka, J., Nakao, C. & Omaki, A. 2011. It’s not the end of the CED as we know it: Revisiting German and Japanese subject islands. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 28: 124–32.Google Scholar
Kandybowicz, J. 2006. Comp-trace effects explained away. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 25: 220–8.Google Scholar
Kathol, A. 2001. Positional effects in a monostratal grammar of German. Journal of Linguistics 37: 35–66.Google Scholar
Kayne, R.S. 2016. What is suppletive allomorphy? On went and on *goed in English. Ms. New York University.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. 1985. Relative clauses. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol. II: Complex Constructions, Shopen, T. (ed.) 141–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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
Keenan, E. & Schieffelin, B. 1976a. Foregrounding referents: A reconsideration of left dislocation in discourse. Berkeley Linguistics Society Proceedings 2: 240–57.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. & Schieffelin, B. 1976b. Topic as a discourse notion: A study of topic in the conversations of children and adults. In Subject and Topic, Li, C.N. (ed.) 335–84. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Keffala, B. 2011. Resumption and gaps in English relative clauses: Relative acceptability creates an illusion of saving. Berkeley Linguistics Society Proceedings 37: 140–54.Google Scholar
Keffala, B. & Goodall, C. 2011. Do resumptive pronouns ever rescue illicit gaps? Poster presented at 24th annual CUNY conference on Human Sentence Processing, Stanford CA.Google Scholar
Kekalainen, K. 1985. Relative clauses in the dialect of Suffolk. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 86: 353–7.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. & Merchant, J. 2000. Attributive comparative deletion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 89–146.Google Scholar
Khalifa, J.-C. 1999. A propos des relatives appositives: Syntaxe, sémantique, pragmatique. Anglophonia 6: 7–29.Google Scholar
King, R.D. 1969. Historical Linguistics and Generative Grammar. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kjellmer, G. 1988. Conjunctional/adverbial which in substandard English. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 21: 125–37.Google Scholar
Kjellmer, G. 2010. And which: A note on (more or less) coordinated relatives. English Studies 91: 457–66.Google Scholar
Klein, E.C. 1993a. A problem for UG in L2 acquisition. Issues in Applied Linguistics 4: 33–56.Google Scholar
Klein, E.C. 1993b. Toward Second Language Acquisition: A Study of Null-Prep. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Klein, E.C. 1995. Evidence for a ‘wild’ L2 grammar: When PPs rear their empty heads. Applied Linguistics 16: 87–117.Google Scholar
Klein, E.C. 2001. (Mis)construing null prepositions in L2 intergrammars: A commentary and proposal. Second Language Research 17: 37–70.Google Scholar
Klein, E.C. & Casco, M. 1999. Optionality in English non-native grammars: Differences between L1 and L2 acquisition. Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development 23: 349–60.Google Scholar
Kluender, R. & Kutas, M. 1993. Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes 8: 573–633.Google Scholar
Koopman, H. 1999. The internal and external distribution of pronominal DPs. In Beyond Principles and Parameters, Johnson, K. & Roberts, I. (eds) 91–132. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Koopman, H. 2010. Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions and particles. In Mapping Spatial PPs, Cinque, G. & Rizzi, L. (eds) 26–73. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kortmann, B., Herrmann, T., Pietsch, L. & Wagner, S. (eds) 2005. A Comparative Grammar of British English Dialects. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Kortmann, B. & Lunkenheimer, K. 2013. The Electronic World Atlas of Varieties of English. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://ewave-atlas.orgGoogle Scholar
Krapova, I. 2002. On the left periphery of the Bulgarian sentence. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 12: 107–28.Google Scholar
Krapova, I. & Cinque, G. 2008. On the order of wh-phrases in Bulgarian multiple wh- fronting. In Formal Description of Slavic Languages, Zybatow, G., Szucsich, L., Junghanns, U. & Meyer, R. (eds) 318–36. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Krashen, S.D. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. 1993. On external arguments. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17: 103–30.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, Rooryck, J. & Zaring, L. (eds) 109–37. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. 1981. On the role of resumptive pronouns in amnestying island constraint violations. Chicago Linguistic Society Papers 17: 125–35.Google Scholar
Kruisinga, E. (1924). On the origin of the anaphoric relative that. English Studies 6: 141–4.Google Scholar
Kuha, M. 1994. Attitudes towards users of coordinate which. Ms. Indiana University, Bloomington. Paper presented to the Indiana University Socio Circle, Bloomington, Sept. 26.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. 1976. Subject, theme and speaker’s empathy: A reexamination of relativization phenomena. In Subject and Topic, Li, C.N. (ed.) 417–44. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Labelle, M. 1990. Predication, wh-movement, and the development of relative clauses. Language Acquisition 1: 95–119.Google Scholar
Laenzlinger, C. 1999. Comparative Studies in Word Order Variation: Adverbs, Pronouns, and Clause Structure in Romance and Germanic. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 1988. There was a farmer had a dog: Syntactic amalgams revisited. Berkeley Linguistics Society Proceedings 14: 319–39.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lamontagne, G. & Travis, L. 1986. The case filter and the ECP. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 51–75.Google Scholar
Lamontagne, G. & Travis, L. 1987. The syntax of adjacency. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 6: 173–86.Google Scholar
Larson, R.K. 1987. Missing prepositions and the analysis of English free relative clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 239–66.Google Scholar
Larson, R.K. 1990. Double objects revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 589–632.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. 1995. A note on Pseudogapping. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 27: 143–63.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. 2001. When can you save a structure by destroying it? In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 31: 301–20.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. & Saito, M. 1992. Move α: Conditions on its Application and Output. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. & Sobin, N. 2000. The who/whom puzzle: On the preservation of an archaic feature. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 343–71.Google Scholar
Lee, J. 2009. Common writing errors, Part 1 – Double trouble: Avoiding nonstandard constructions. http://upwritepress.comGoogle Scholar
Lee, M.-W. & Gibbons, J. 2007. Rhythmic alternation and the optional complementiser in English: New evidence of phonological influence on grammatical encoding. Cognition 105: 446–56.Google Scholar
Lees, R.B. 1960. The Grammar of English Nominalizations. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Lees, R.B. 1961. The constituent structure of noun phrases. American Speech 36: 159–68.Google Scholar
Legendre, G., Grimshaw, J. & Vikner, S. (eds) 2001. Optimality-Theoretic Syntax. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Leung, T. 2014. The preposition stranding generalization and conditions on Sluicing: Evidence from Emirati Arabic. Linguistic Inquiry 45: 332–40.Google Scholar
Liberman, M. 2005. Whomever controls language controls politics. Language Log posting, 22 Oct. 2005. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/Google Scholar
Liberman, M. 2007a. A note of dignity or austerity. Language Log posting 3 May 2007. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/Google Scholar
Liberman, M. 2007b. Back to the future, redundant preposition department. Language Log posting 4 May 2007. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/Google Scholar
Liberman, M. 2007c. A phenomenon in which I’m starting to believe in. Language Log posting 14 May 2007. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/Google Scholar
Liberman, M. 2007d. Re-doubled prepositions. Language Log posting, 19 May 2007. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/Google Scholar
Liberman, M. 2014. Samples in which hypercorrections are in. Language Log posting, 15 April 2014. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/Google Scholar
Llinàs-Grau, M. & Fernández-Sánchez, J.F. 2013. Reflexiones en torno a la supresión del complementante en inglés, español y catalán. Revista Española de Lingüística 43: 55–88.Google Scholar
Loebel, E. 1994. KP/DP syntax: Interaction of case marking with referential and nominal features. Theoretical Linguistics 20: 38–70.Google Scholar
Lohndal, T. 2009. Comp-t effects: Variation in the position and features of C. Studia Linguistica 63: 204–32.Google Scholar
Loock, R. 2003. Les fonctions des propositions subordonnées relatives appositives en discours. Anglophonia 12: 113–31.Google Scholar
Loock, R. 2005. Appositive relative clauses in contemporary written and spoken English: Discourse functions and competitive structures. PhD diss. University of Lille III.Google Scholar
Loock, R. 2007a. Appositive relative clauses and their functions in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 336–62.Google Scholar
Loock, R. 2007b. Are you a good which or a bad which? The relative pronoun as a plain connective. In Connectives as Discourse Landmarks, Celle, A. & Huart, R. (eds) 71–87. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Loock, R. 2010. Appositive Relative Clauses in English: Discourse Functions and Competing Structures. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Manetta, E. 2007. Unexpected left dislocation: An English corpus study. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1029–35.Google Scholar
Manzini, M.R. 2014. The Romance k-complementizers. In Functional Structure from Top to Toe: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 9, Svenonius, P. (ed.) 148–87. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Massam, D. 1989. Null objects and non-thematic subjects, Journal of Linguistics 20: 134–9.Google Scholar
Massam, D. 2017. Extra be: The syntax of shared shell-noun constructions in English. Language 93: 121–52.Google Scholar
Massam, D. & Roberge, Y. 1989. Recipe context null objects in English. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 134–9.Google Scholar
Matushansky, O. 1995. Le sujet nul dans les propositions à temps fini en anglais. Maîtrise paper, University of Paris VIII.Google Scholar
McCawley, J.D. 1981. The syntax and semantics of English relative clauses. Lingua 53: 99–149.Google Scholar
McCawley, J.D. 1988. Adverbial NPs: Bare or clad in see-through garb? Language 64: 583–90.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. 1979. Transformational Syntax and Model-Theoretic Semantics: A Case Study in Modern Irish. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. 1990. Resumptive pronouns, A‘-binding, and levels of representation in Irish. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 23: The Syntax of Modern Celtic Languages, Hendrik, R. (ed.) 199–248. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. 2002. Resumption, successive-cyclicity, and the locality of operations. In Derivation and Explanation, Epstein, S.D. & Seely, D. (eds) 184–226. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. 2006. Resumption. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Everaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H. (eds) 94–117. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. 2017a. Observations and speculations on resumption (in Irish). Ms. University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. 2017b. Resumption. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax (2nd edn), Everaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H. (eds) 3809–38. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
McDaniel, D. & Cowart, W. 1999. Experimental evidence of a minimalist account of English resumptive pronouns. Cognition 70: B15–B24.Google Scholar
McDaniel, D. McKee, C. & Bernstein, J.B. 1998. How children’s relatives solve a problem for Minimalism. Language 74: 308–34.Google Scholar
McKee, C. & McDaniel, D. 2001. Resumptive pronouns in English relative clauses. Language Acquisition 9: 113–56.Google Scholar
McKee, C., McDaniel, D. & Snedeker, J. 1998. Relatives children say. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 27: 573–96.Google Scholar
McNally, L. 2008. DP-internal only, amount relatives and relatives out of existentials. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 161–9.Google Scholar
Meier, C. 2015. Amount relatives as generalised quantifiers. Ms, Goethe University, Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Merchant, J. (1999). The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and identity in ellipsis. PhD diss. University of California Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Merchant, J. 2001. The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, J. 2004a. Resumptivity and non-movement. Studies in Greek Linguistics 24: 471–81.Google Scholar
Merchant, J. 2006. Sluicing. In The Syntax Companion, Everaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H. (eds) 269–89. Blackwell: London.Google Scholar
Merchant, J. 2008. Variable island repair under ellipsis. In Topics in Ellipsis, Johnson, K. (ed.) 132–53. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Merchant, J., Frazier, L., Clifton, C. Jr & Weskott, T. 2013. Fragment answers to questions: A case of inaudible syntax. In Brevity, Goldstein, L. (ed.) 21–35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, R. 2005. Black South African English: Morphology and syntax. In A Comparative Grammar of British English Dialects, Kortmann, B., Herrmann, T., Pietsch, L. & Wagner, S. (eds) 962–73. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Miller, J. 1988. That: A relative pronoun? In Edinburgh Studies in the English Language, Anderson, J.M. & Macleod, M. (eds) 113–19. Edinburgh: John Donald.Google Scholar
Miller, J. 1993. The grammar of Scottish English. In Real English, Milroy, J. & Milroy, L. (eds) 99–138. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Miller, J. 2005. Scottish English: Morphology and syntax. In A Comparative Grammar of British English Dialects, Kortmann, B., Herrmann, T., Pietsch, L. & Wagner, S. (eds) 47–72. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Miller, J. & Fernandez-Vest, J. 2006. Spoken and written language. In Pragmatic Organization of Discourse in the Languages of Europe, Bernini, G. & Schwartz, M.L. (eds) 9–66. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Miller, J. & Weinert, R. 1998. Spontaneous Spoken Language: Syntax and Discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. 1972. Some aspects of relative clauses in English and Albanian. In The Chicago Which Hunt: Papers from the Relative Clause Festival, Peranteau, P.M., Levi, J.N. & Phares, G.C. (eds) 63–72. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Morgan, A.M., & Wagers, M. 2017. English resumptive pronouns are more common where gaps are less acceptable. Ms. University of California at San Diego (to appear in Linguistic Inquiry).Google Scholar
Moritz, L. & Valois, D. 1994. Pied-piping and specifier-head agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 667–707.Google Scholar
Mufenwe, S. 2005. Gullah: Morphology and syntax. In A Comparative Grammar of British English Dialects, Kortmann, B., Herrmann, T., Pietsch, L. & Wagner, S. (eds) 356–73. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Müller, G. 2000. Shape conservation and remnant movement. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 30: 525–39.Google Scholar
Müller, G. 2001. Order preservation, parallel movement, and the emergence of the unmarked. In Optimality-Theoretic Syntax, Legendre, G., Grimshaw, J. & Vikner, S. (eds) 113–42. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Müller, G. 2014. Resumption by buffers: German relative clauses. Linguistische Berichte 239: 267–95.Google Scholar
Munaro, N. 2003. On some differences between exclamative and interrogative wh-phrases in Bellunese: Further evidence for a split-CP hypothesis. In The Syntax of Italian Dialects, Tortora, C. (ed.) 137–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Munn, A. 1994. A minimalist account of reconstruction asymmetries. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 24: 397–410.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, T.F. (1960). Middle English Syntax, Part I: Parts of Speech. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Nakamura, T. 2009. Headed relatives, free relatives, and determiner-headed free relatives. English Linguistics 26: 329–55.Google Scholar
Nakao, C. 2009. Island repair and non-repair by PF strategies. PhD diss. University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Nariyama, S. 2006. Pragmatic information extraction from subject ellipsis in informal English. Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Scalable Natural Language Understanding, 1–8. New York: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Nevins, A. 2004. Derivations without the activity condition. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49: 287–310.Google Scholar
Newbrook, M. 1998. Which way? That way? Variation and ongoing changes in the English relative clause. World Englishes 17: 43–59.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F.J. 2005. A reply to the critiques of ‘Grammar is grammar and usage is usage.’ Language 81: 229–36.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F.J. 2006b. Grammar and usage: A response to Gregory R. Guy. Language 82: 705–6.Google Scholar
Nicholas, K.E. 2011. Children’s omission of prepositions in English and Icelandic. PhD diss. University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Nishimura, M. 1986. Intrasentential code-switching: The case of language assignment. In: Vaid, J. (ed.) Language Processing in Bilinguals: Psycholinguistic and Neuropsychological Perspectives. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Nishimura, M. 1995. A functional analysis of Japanese/English code-switching. Journal of Pragmatics 23: 157–81.Google Scholar
Nunes, J. 1995. The copy theory of movement and linearization of chains in the minimalist program. PhD diss. University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Nunes, J. 1999. Linearization of chains and phonetic realisation of chain links. In Working Minimalism, Epstein, S.D. & Hornstein, N. (eds) 217–49. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nunes, J. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nye, R. 2013. How complement clauses distribute: Complementiser-how and the case against clause type. PhD diss. University of Ghent.Google Scholar
Nykiel, J. 2010. Competence, performance and extra prepositions. Journal of English Linguistics 38: 143–66.Google Scholar
Nykiel, J. 2017. Preposition stranding and ellipsis alternation. English Language and Linguistics 21: 27–45.Google Scholar
Omaki, A. & Nakao, C. 2010. Does English resumption really help to repair island violations? Snippets 21: 11–12.Google Scholar
Ott, D. 2011. A note on free relative clauses in the theory of phases. Linguistic Inquiry 42: 183–92.Google Scholar
Paoli, S. 2003. COMP and the left periphery: Comparative evidence from Romance. PhD diss. University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Paoli, S. 2007. The fine structure of the left periphery: COMPs and subjects; Evidence from Romance. Lingua 117: 1057–79.Google Scholar
Park, B.-S. 2005. Focus, parallelism, and identity in ellipsis. PhD diss. University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Parker, F., Riley, K. & Meyer, C. 1988. Case assignment and the ordering of constituents in coordinate constructions. American Speech 63: 214–33.Google Scholar
Parry, M. 2007. La frase relativa (con antecedente) negli antichi volgari dell’Italia nord-occidentale. LabRomAn 1: 9–32.Google Scholar
Patrick, P. 2005. Jamaican creole: Morphology and syntax. In A Comparative Grammar of British English Dialects, Kortmann, B., Herrmann, T., Pietsch, L. & Wagner, S. (eds) 407–38. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.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.Google Scholar
Paul, W. 2005. Low IP area and left periphery in Mandarin Chinese. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 33: 111–134.Google Scholar
Pawley, A. & Syder, F.H. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Language and Communication, Richards, J.C. & Schmidt, R.W. (eds) 191–225. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Pearce, E. 1999. Topic and focus in a head-initial language: Maori. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 16: 249–63.Google Scholar
Peranteau, P.M., Levi, J.N. & Phares, G.C. (eds) 1972. The Chicago Which Hunt: Papers from the Relative Clause Festival. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, A.T. 1995. Resumptives in the acquisition of relative clauses. Language Acquisition 4: 105–138.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D.M. 1968. Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. PhD diss. MIT.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D.M. 1971. Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D.M. 1972. Evidence for shadow pronouns in French relativization. In The Chicago Which Hunt: Papers from the Relative Clause Festival, Peranteau, P.M., Levi, J.N. & Phares, G.C. (eds) 73–105. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Perrin, C. 2009. The grammar doctor: Double prepositions. http://www.oocities.org/grammardoc5/preposition2.html (9 May 2015).Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. 1982 Complementizer–trace phenomena and the Nominative Island Condition. The Linguistic Review 1: 297–345.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. 1998. Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation. In Is the Best Good Enough?, Barbosa, P., Fox, D., Hagstrom, P., McGinnis, M. & Pesetsky, D. (eds) 337–83. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. 2016. Complementizer-trace effects. Ms. MIT. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002385Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. & Torrego, E. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Kenstowicz, M. (ed.) 355–426. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. & Torrego, E. 2004. Tense, case, and the nature of syntactic categories. In The Syntax of Time, Guéron, J. & Lecarme, J. (eds) 495–537. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Philippova, T. 2014. P-omission under sluicing, [P clitic] and the nature of P-stranding. Proceedings of ConSOLE 22: 133–55.Google Scholar
Poletto, C. 2000. The Higher Functional Field: Evidence from Northern Italian Dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poletto, C. 2006. Doubling as economy. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 16: 211–35.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M., Clemens, L.E., Morgan, A.M., Xiang, M. & Heestand, D. 2013. Resumption in English. In Experimental Syntax and Island Effects, Sprouse, J. & Hornstein, N. (eds) 341–59. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Poplack, S., Wheeler, S. & Westwood, A. 1989. Distinguishing language-contact phenomena: Evidence from Finnish-English bilingualism. World Englishes 8: 389–406.Google Scholar
Portner, P. & Yabushita, K. 1998. The semantics and pragmatics of topic phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 117–57.Google Scholar
Postal, P.M. 1966. On so-called pronouns in English. In Report on the Seventeenth Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies, Dinneen, F. (ed.) 177–206. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Postal, P.M. 1970. On so-called pronouns in English. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Jacobs, R. & Rosenbaum, P. (eds) 56–82. Waltham MA: Ginn and Company.Google Scholar
Poutsma, H. 1914. A Grammar of Late Modern English. Part II (The Parts of Speech) Section I.A. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Prince, E. 1981a. Topicalization, Focus-Movement, and Yiddish-Movement: A pragmatic differentiation. Berkeley Linguistics Society Proceedings 7: 249–64.Google Scholar
Prince, E. 1981b. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Radical Pragmatics, Cole, P. (ed.) 222–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Prince, E. 1984. Topicalization and left dislocation: A functional analysis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 433: 213–25.Google Scholar
Prince, E. 1985. Fancy syntax and shared knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics 9: 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, E. 1990. Syntax and discourse: A look at resumptive pronouns. Berkeley Linguistics Society Proceedings 16: 482–97.Google Scholar
Prince, E. 1995. On kind-sentences, resumptive pronouns, and relative clauses. In Towards a Social Science of Language: A Festschrift for William Labov, Guy, G., Baugh, J. & Schiffrin, D. (eds) 223–35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Prince, E. 1997 On the functions of left-dislocation in English discourse. In Directions in Functional Linguistics, Kamio, A. (ed.) 117–43. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pullum, G.K. 2007. Could preposition doubling be headed our way? Language Log posting, 15 May 2007. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/Google Scholar
Puskás, G. 2000. Word Order in Hungarian: The Syntax of Ā-positions. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Quinn, H. 2005. The Distribution of Pronoun Case Forms in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Quirk, R.S. 1957. Relative clauses in educated spoken English. English Studies 38: 97–109.Google Scholar
Quirk, R.S., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, S. (eds) 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rackowski, A. & Richards, N. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 565–99.Google Scholar
Radford, A. 1980. On English exclamatives. Ms. Bangor: University College of North Wales.Google Scholar
Radford, A. 1988. Transformational Grammar: A First Course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Radford, A. 1997. Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Radford, A. 2004a. Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Radford, A. 2004b. English Syntax: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Radford, A. 2009a. Analysing English Sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Radford, A. 2009b. An Introduction to English Sentence Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Radford, A. 2010a. Real relatives: The syntax of relative clauses in live radio and TV broadcasts. Talk given at Essex Which Hunt conference, University of Essex, 4 June 2010.Google Scholar
Radford, A. 2010b. The syntax of wh-clauses in live radio and TV broadcasts. Paper presented at conference on Generative Grammar in the 21st Century, University of Essex, 7 July 2010.Google Scholar
Radford, A. 2016. Analysing English Sentences, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Radford, A. 2018. Colloquial English: Structure and Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Radford, A., Atkinson, M., Britain, D., Clahsen, H. & Spencer, A. (2009) Linguistics: An Introduction, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Radford, A. & Felser, C. 2011. On preposition copying and preposition pruning in wh- clauses in English. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 60.4: 1–35.Google Scholar
Radford, A., Felser, C. & Boxell, O. 2012. Preposition copying and pruning in present-day English. English Language and Linguistics 16: 403–26.Google Scholar
Radford, A. & Iwasaki, E. 2015. On Swiping in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33: 703–44.Google Scholar
Reid, J. 1997. Relatives and their relatives: Relative clauses in conversational Australian English. PhD diss. La Trobe University.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27: 53–94.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, H. 1978. A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness: The Binding Nature of Prepositional Phrases. Lisse: Peter de Ridder.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, H. 1990. Functional prepositions. In Unity in Diversity: Papers Presented to Simon C. Dik on his 50th Birthday, Pinkster, H. & Genee, I. (eds) 229–41. Foris: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, H. 2005. Free relatives: A syntactic case study. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Everaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H. (eds) 336–78. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Riley, K. & Parker, F. 1986. Anomalous prepositions in relative clauses. American Speech 61: 291–306.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1996. Residual verb-second and the wh-criterion. In Parameters and Functional Heads, Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L. (eds) 63–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, Haegeman, L. (ed.) 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2000a. Remarks on early null subjects. In The Acquisition of Syntax, Freidemann, M.-A. & Rizzi, L. (eds) 269–92. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2001. On the position ‘Int(errogative)’ in the left periphery of the clause. In Current Issues in Italian Syntax, Cinque, G. & Salvi, G. (eds) 287–96. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2003. Relativised minimality effects. In The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, Baltin, M. & Collins, C. (eds) 89–110. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2004a (ed.) The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 2, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2004b. Locality and left periphery. In Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 3, Belletti, A. (ed.) 223–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2005. On some properties of subjects and topics. In Proceedings of the XXX Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, Brugé, L., Giusti, G., Munaro, N., Schweikert, W. & Turano, G. (eds) 203–24. Venice: Cafoscarina.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2006a. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Wh-Movement: Moving On, Cheng, L. & Corver, N. (eds) 97–133. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2006b. On intermediate positions: Intervention and impenetrability. Handout for talk presented to Ealing 2006. Paris: ENS.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2006c. Grammatically based target inconsistencies in child language. University of Connecticut Occasional Papers in Linguistics 4: 19–49.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2010. On some properties of criterial freezing. In The Complementizer Phase: Subjects and Operators, Panagiotidis, E.P. (ed.) 17–32. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2011. Syntactic cartography and the syntacticisation of scope-discourse semantics. Ms. universities of Siena and Geneva.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2013a. Delimitation effects and the cartography of the left periphery. In Discourse and Grammar: From Sentence Types to Lexical Categories, Grewendorf, G. & Zimmermann, T.E. (eds) 115–45. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2013c. A Note on locality and selection. In Deep Insights, Broad Perspectives: Essays in Honor of Mamoru Saito, Miyamoto, Y., Takahashi, D. & Maki, H. (eds) 325–341. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2013d. Focus, topic and the cartography of the left periphery. In The Bloomsbury Companion to Syntax, Luraghi, S. & Parodi, C. (eds) 436–51. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2014a. Some consequences of criterial freezing. In Functional Structure from Top to Toe: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 9, Svenonius, P. (ed.) 19–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2014b. The cartography of syntactic structures: Locality and freezing effects on movement. In On Peripheries: Exploring Clause Initial and Clause Final Positions, Cardinaletti, C., Cinque, G. & Endo, Y. (eds) 29–59. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobe Publishing.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2015a. Cartography, criteria and labelling. In Beyond Functional Sequence: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 10, Shlonsky, U. (ed.) 314–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2015b. Notes on labelling and subject positions. In Structures, Strategies and Beyond: Studies in Honour of Adriana Belletti, Domenico, E. Di, Hamann, C. & Matterini, S. (eds) 17–46. Amsterdam: Benjamin.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. & Bocci, G. 2017. Left periphery of the clause: Primarily illustrated for Italian. In The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition, Everaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H. (eds) 1–30. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. & Cinque, G. 2016. Functional categories and syntactic theory. Annual Review of Linguistics 2: 139–163.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. & Shlonsky, U. 2006. Satisfying the subject criterion by a non-subject: Locative inversion and heavy NP shift. In Phases of Interpretation, Frascarelli, M. (ed.) 341–61. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. & Shlonsky, U. 2007. Strategies of subject extraction. In Interfaces + Recursion = Language?, Sauerland, U. & Gärtner, H.-M. (eds) 115–60. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2004. The C-system in Brythionic Celtic languages and the EPP. In The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 2, Rizzi, L. (ed.) 297–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. & Roussou, A. 2002. The extended projection principle as a condition on the tense dependency. In Subjects, Expletives and the EPP, Svenonius, P. (ed.) 125–55. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, C., Nevins, A. & Vicente, L. 2009. Cleaving the interactions between sluicing and preposition stranding. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2006, Wetzels, L. & van der Weijer, J. (eds) 175–98. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rooryck, J. 1994. Generalized transformations and the wh-cycle: Free relatives as bare wh-CPs. In Minimalism and Kayne’s Asymmetry Hypothesis. Zwart, C. J.-W. (ed.) 195–208. Groningen: Groningen University.Google Scholar
Rooryck, J. 1996. Prepositions and minimalist case-marking. Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax 2: 226–56.Google Scholar
Ross, J.R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. PhD diss. MIT (published as Ross 1986).Google Scholar
Roussou, A. 2000. On the left periphery: Modal particles and complementizers. Journal of Greek Linguistics 1: 65–94.Google Scholar
Rouveret, A. 1991. Functional categories and agreement. The Linguistic Review 8: 353–87.Google Scholar
Rouveret, A. 2002. How are resumptive pronouns linked to the periphery? Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2: 123–84.Google Scholar
Rudin, C. 1986. Changing the rules: ‘Extra’ prepositions in relative clauses. Chicago Linguistic Society Papers 22: 277–85.Google Scholar
Rydén, M. 1966. Relative constructions in early sixteenth century English with special reference to Sir Thomas Elyot. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Uppsaliensis.Google Scholar
Sabel, J. 2002. A minimalist analysis of syntactic islands. The Linguistic Review 19: 271–315.Google Scholar
Safir, K. 1986. Relative clauses in a theory of binding and levels. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 663–90.Google Scholar
Sag, I.A. 1997. English relative clause constructions. Journal of Linguistics 33: 431–83.Google Scholar
Sag, I.A. & Nykiel, J. 2011. Remarks on sluicing. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Müller, S. (ed.) 188–208. Stanford CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Salzmann, M. 2006. Resumptive pronouns and matching effects in Zurich German relative clauses as distributed deletion. Leiden Papers in Linguistics 3: 17–50.Google Scholar
Salvi, G. 2005. Some firm points on Latin word order: The left periphery. In Universal Grammar and the Reconstruction of Ancient Languages, Kiss, K.E. (ed.) 429–56. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Salvi, G. & Renzi, L. (eds) 2010. Grammatica dell’Italiano Antico. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Sato, Y. 2011. P-stranding under sluicing and repair by ellipsis. Why is Indonesian (not) special? Journal of East Asian Linguistics 20: 339–82.Google Scholar
Sato, Y. & Dobashi, Y. 2013. Functional categories and prosodic phrasing in English: Evidence from that-trace effects and pronominal object shift. Ms. National Univ. of Singapore and Niigata University.Google Scholar
Sauerland, U. 1999. Two structures for English restrictive relative clauses. In Proceedings of the Nanzan GLOW, Saito, M. et al. (eds) 351−66. Nagoya: Nanzan University.Google Scholar
Sauerland, U. 2003. Unpronounced heads in relative clauses. In The Interfaces: Deriving and Interpreting Omitted Structures, Schwabe, K. & Winkler, S. (eds) 205–26. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sauerland, U. & Gärtner, H.-M. (eds) 2007. Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schepps, H. 2010. Competing constraints and hypercorrect whom: Syntactic uncertainty meets linguistic insecurity. Senior thesis, Yale University.Google Scholar
Schönenberger, M. 2010. Optional doubly-filled COMPs (DFCs) in wh-complements in child and adult Swiss German. In Variation in the Input, Anderssen, M., Bentzen, K. & Westergaaed, M. (eds) 33–64. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. 1996. The Empirical Basis of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. 2009. Web searches should supplement judgements, not supplant them. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 28: 151–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütze, C. & Sprouse, J. 2014. Judgment data. In Research Methods in Linguistics, Podesva, R.J. & Sharma, D. (eds) 27–50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B.D. 1985. Case and conjunction. Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics 10: 161–86.Google Scholar
Sells, P. 1984. Syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns. PhD diss. UMass, Amherst.Google Scholar
Sells, P. 2001. Structure Alignment and Optimality in Swedish. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Seppänen, A. 1997: Relative that and prepositional complementation. English Language and Linguistics 1: 111–133.Google Scholar
Seppänen, A. & Kjellmer, G. 1995. The dog that’s leg was broken: On the genitive of the relative pronoun. English Studies 76: 389–400.Google Scholar
Shaer, B. & Frey, W.. 2004. Integrated and non-integrated left-peripheral elements in German and English. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 35: 465–502.Google Scholar
Sharvit, Y. 1999. Resumptive pronouns in relative clauses. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 587–612.Google Scholar
Shaughnessy, M.P. 1977. Errors and Expectations: A Guide for the Teacher of Writing. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sheehan, M. 2013a. The resuscitation of CED. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 40: 135–50.Google Scholar
Sheehan, M. 2013b. Some implications of a copy theory of labelling. Syntax 16: 362–96.Google Scholar
Shepherd, A. 2014. ‘Him and me’ or ‘me and him’: A minimalist analysis of case variation in English conjunction. PhD diss. University of Southampton.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, U. 1992. Resumptive pronouns as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 443–68.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, U. 1997. Clause Structure and Word Order in Hebrew and Arabic: An Essay in Comparative Semitic Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, U. 2010. The cartographic enterprise in syntax. Language and Linguistics Compass 4: 417–39.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, U. 2014. Subject positions, subject extraction, EPP, and the Subject Criterion. In Locality, Aboh, E., Guasti, M.T. & Roberts, I. (eds) 58–85. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shnukal, A. 1981. There’s a lot mightn’t believe this … Variable subject relative pronoun absence in Australian English. In Variation Omnibus, Sankoff, D. & Cedergren, H. (eds) 321–8. Carbondale, IL: Linguistic Research.Google Scholar
Shorrocks, G. 1982. Relative pronouns and relative clauses in the dialect of Farnworth and district (Greater Manchester County, formerly Lancashire). Zeltschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 49: 334–43.Google Scholar
Siemund, P. 2008. Pronominal Gender in English: A Study of English Varieties from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sigley, R. 1997. The influence of formality and channel on relative pronoun choice in New Zealand English. English Language and Linguistics 1: 207–32.Google Scholar
Sigurdsson, H.A. & Maling, J. 2007. Argument drop and the empty left edge condition. Ms. Lund University & Brandeis University.Google Scholar
Simonin, O. 2012. Adverbial and relative to-infinitives. Journal of English Linguistics 41: 4–32.Google Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, A.M. 1981. The Grammar of Headlines in The Times 1870–1970. Brussels: AWLSK.Google Scholar
Šímová, P. 2005. The transition between restrictive and nonrestrictive adnominal relative clauses. PhD diss. Charles University, Prague.Google Scholar
Sistrunk, W. 2012. The syntax of zero in African American relative clauses. PhD diss. Michigan State University.Google Scholar
Smith, C. 1964. Determiners and relative clauses in a generative grammar of English. Language 40: 37–52.Google Scholar
Sobin, N. 1987. The variable status of Comp-trace phenomena. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5: 33–60.Google Scholar
Sobin, N. 1997. Agreement, default rules and grammatical viruses. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 318–43.Google Scholar
Sobin, N. 2002. The Comp-trace effect, the adverb effect and minimal CP. Journal of Linguistics 38: 527–60.Google Scholar
Sobin, N. 2016. The halting problem. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 1.3: 1–10.Google Scholar
Speas, P. & Tenny, C. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. In Asymmetry in Grammar, di Sciullo, A.M. (ed.) 315–45. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sportiche, D. 2015. Relative clauses: Head raising only. http://www.ciscl.unisi.it/ad60/doc/sportiche_abs.pdfGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, J. 2011. A test of the cognitive assumptions of magnitude estimation: Commutativity does not hold for acceptability judgments. Language 87: 274–88.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. & Almeida, D. 2011a. Power in acceptability judgment experiments and the reliability of data in syntax. Ms. University of California, Irvine and Michigan State University.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. & Almeida, D. 2011b. A formal experimental investigation of the empirical foundation of generative syntactic theory. Ms. University of California, Irvine and Michigan State University.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. & Almeida, D. 2012. Assessing the reliability of textbook data in syntax: Adger’s Core Syntax. Journal of Linguistics 48: 609–52.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. & Almeida, D. 2013. The empirical status of data in syntax: A reply to Gibson and Fedorenko. Language and Cognitive Processes. 28: 229–40.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. Schütze, C. & Almeida, D. 2013. A comparison of informal and formal acceptability judgments using a random sample from Linguistic Inquiry 2001–2010. Lingua 134: 219–48.Google Scholar
Stanton, J. 2016. Wholesale late merger in Ā-Movement: Evidence from preposition stranding. Linguistic Inquiry 47: 89–126.Google Scholar
Staum Casasanto, L. & Sag, I.A. 2008a. The advantage of the ungrammatical. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 601–6. Austin TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Staum Casasanto, L. & Sag, I.A. 2008b. Antilocality in ungrammaticality: Nonlocal grammaticality violations are easier to process. Poster presented at CUNY 2008 in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.Google Scholar
Stemberger, J.P. 1982. Syntactic errors in speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 11: 313–45.Google Scholar
Stepanov, A. 2007. The end of CED? Minimalism and extraction domains. Linguistic Inquiry 10: 80–126.Google Scholar
Stjepanović, S. 2008. P-stranding under sluicing in a non-P-stranding language? Linguistic Inquiry 37: 179–190.Google Scholar
Stjepanović, S. 2012. Two cases of violation repair under sluicing. In Sluicing: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives, Merchant, J. & Simpson, A. (eds) 68–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stowell, T. 1996. Empty heads in abbreviated English. Ms. UCLA.Google Scholar
Suárez-Gómez, C. 2014. Relative clauses in Southeast Asian Englishes. Journal of English Linguistics 42: 245–68.Google Scholar
Suñer, M. 1998. Resumptive restrictive relatives: a crosslinguistic perspective. Language 74: 335–64.Google Scholar
Szczegielniak, A. 1999. That-trace effects cross-linguistically and successive-cyclic movement. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 33: 1–26.Google Scholar
Szczegielniak, A. 2008. Islands in Sluicing in Polish. In Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 27: 404–12.Google Scholar
Szczegielniak, A. 2015. Phase by phase computation of prominence in ellipsis and PP-stranding island alleviation. Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 24: 418–37.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. 2002. Variation and change in the British relative marker system. In Dialect Contact and History on the North Sea Littoral, Poussa, P. (ed.) 147–65. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, K.T. 1978. The scope of wh-movement in Norwegian. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 623–40.Google Scholar
Teddiman, L. & Newman, J. 2010. Subject ellipsis in English: Construction of and findings from a diary corpus. In Handbook of Research on Discourse Behaviour and Digital Communications: Language Structures and Social Interaction, Taiwo, R. (ed.) 281–95. Hershey PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
Torrence, H. 2013. The Clause Structure of Wolof: Insights into the Left Periphery. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tottie, G. 1997a. Relatively speaking: Relative marker usage in the British National Corpus. In To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen, Nevalainen, T. & Kahlas-Tarkka, L. (eds) 465–81. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Tottie, G. 1997b. Overseas relatives: British-American differences in relative marker usage. In Studies in English Language Research and Teaching, Aarts, J. & Wekker, H. (eds) 153–65. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Travis, L. & Lamontagne, G. 1992. The Case Filter and licensing of empty K. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 37: 157–74.Google Scholar
Truswell, R. 2007. Extraction from adjuncts and the structure of events. Lingua 117: 1355–77.Google Scholar
Truswell, R. 2009. Preposition stranding, passivisation, and extraction from adjuncts in Germanic. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 8: 131–77.Google Scholar
Trotta, J. 2000. Wh-Clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Tsai, W.-T.D. 1997. On the absence of island effects. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 27:125–49.Google Scholar
Tsai, W.-T. D. 2008. Left periphery and why-how alternations. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 17: 83–115.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I.M. 1999. Null operators, clitics and identification: A comparison between Greek and English. In Studies in Greek Syntax, Alexiadou, A., Horrocks, G. & Stavrou, M. (eds) 241–62. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Tuttenham, R.D. 1966. Jean Piaget and the world of the child. American Psychologist 21: 207–17.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J. 1995. Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 79–123.Google Scholar
Vangsnes, Ø. 2005. Microparameters for Norwegian wh-grammars. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 5: 187–226.Google Scholar
Varlokosta, S. & Armon-Lotem, S. 1998. Resumptives and wh-movement in the acquisition of relative clauses in modern Greek and Hebrew. Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development 22: 737–46.Google Scholar
Villa-García, J. 2010. Recomplementation and locality of movement in Spanish. General Examination Paper, University of Connecticut, Storrs (A published version appeared as Villa-García 2012c).Google Scholar
Villa-García, J. 2011a. On COMP-t effects in Spanish: A new argument for rescue by PF deletion. Paper presented to GLOW 34, University of Vienna.Google Scholar
Villa-García, J. 2011b. On the Spanish clausal leftedge: In defence of a TopicP account of recomplementation. Paper presented to 41st Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, University of Ottowa.Google Scholar
Villa-García, J. 2012a Characterizing medial and low complementizers in Spanish: Recomplementation que and jussive/optative que. In Current Formal Aspects of Spanish Syntax and Semantics, González-Rivera, M. & Sessarego, S. (eds) 198–228. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Villa-García, J. 2012b The Spanish complementizer system: Consequences for the syntax of dislocations and subjects, locality of movement, and clausal structure. PhD diss. University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Villa-García, J. 2012c Recomplementation and locality of movement in Spanish. Probus 24: 257–314.Google Scholar
Villa-García, J. 2015 The Syntax of Multiple-que Sentences in Spanish: Along the Left Periphery. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Villalba, X. 2000. The Syntax of Sentence Periphery. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Barcelona: Servei de Publicacions.Google Scholar
de Villiers, P.A. 1988. Assessing English syntax in hearing-impaired children: Elicited production in pragmatically motivated situations. The Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology 21: 41–71.Google Scholar
Vogel, R. 2001. Case conflict in German free relative constructions: An optimality theoretic treatment. In Competition in Syntax, Müller, G. & Sternefeld, W. (eds) 341–75. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ward, G. & Prince, E. 1991. On the topicalization of indefinite NPs. Journal of Pragmatics 15: 167–77.Google Scholar
Watanabe, A. 1993. Agr-based case theory and its interaction with the A-bar system. PhD diss. MIT.Google Scholar
Watanabe, D. 2013. A semantic analysis of amount relatives in comparison with concealed exclamatives. Tsukuba English Studies 32: 213–16.Google Scholar
Webelhuth, G. 1992. Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wei, T.-C. 2011. Parallelism in Amis Sluicing. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 37: 1–44.Google Scholar
Weir, A. 2008. Subject pronoun drop in informal English. MA thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Weir, A. 2009. Subject pronoun drop in informal English. Ms. University College London.Google Scholar
Weir, A. 2012. Left-edge deletion in English and subject omission in diaries. English Language and Linguistics 16: 105–29.Google Scholar
Weir, A. 2014. Fragments and clausal ellipsis. PhD diss. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Weir, A. 2017. Object drop and article drop in reduced written register. Linguistic Variation 17: 151–85.Google Scholar
Weskott, T. & Fanselow, G. 2011. On the informativity of different measures of linguistic acceptability. Language 87: 249–73.Google Scholar
Westergaard, M.R. 2003. Word order in wh-questions in a North Norwegian dialect: Some evidence from an acquisition study. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 26: 81–109.Google Scholar
Westergaard, M.R. 2005. Optional word order in wh-questions in two Norwegian dialects: A diachronic analysis of synchronic variation. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28: 81–109.Google Scholar
Westergaard, M.R. & Vangsnes, Ø. 2005. Wh-questions, V2 and the left periphery of three Norwegian dialect types. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 8: 117–58.Google Scholar
Wexler, K. & Culicover, P.W. 1980. Formal Principles of Language Acquisition. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Willis, D. 2000. On the distribution of resumptive pronouns and wh-trace in Welsh. Journal of Linguistics 36: 531–73.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, M. 1998. On the syntax and semantics of (relative) pronouns and determiners. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2: 143–81.Google Scholar
Yáñez-Bouza, N. 2014. Grammar, Rhetoric and Usage in English: Preposition Placement 1500–1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yang, Y. 2009. Infinitival relative clauses in English. English Language and Linguistics 28: 137–55.Google Scholar
Zhang, N. 2008. Gapless relative clauses as clausal licensors of relational nouns. Language and Linguistics 9: 1005–28.Google Scholar
Ziv, Y. 1994. Left and right dislocations: Discourse functions and anaphora. Journal of Pragmatics 22: 629–45.Google Scholar
Zwart, J.-W. 1993. Dutch syntax: A minimalist approach. PhD diss. University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Zwart, J.-W. 2000. A Head Raising analysis of relative clauses in Dutch. In The Syntax of Relative Clauses, Alexiadou, A., Law, P., Meinunger, A., and Wilder, C. (eds) 349–86. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A.M. 2002. I wonder what kind of construction that this example illustrates. In The Construction of Meaning, Beaver, D., Casillas Martínez, L.D., Clark, B.Z. & Kaufmann, S. (eds) 219–48. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A.M. 2005. Just between Dr. Language and I. Language Log posting, 5 Aug. 2005. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/Google Scholar
Zwicky, A.M. 2007. Whom shall I say [___ is calling]? Language Log posting. 23 Jan. 2007. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/Google Scholar