Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 July 2021
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
- Semantics with Assignment Variables , pp. 233 - 262Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Abbott, Barbara. 2002. Donkey Demonstratives. Natural Language Semantics, 10, 285–298. [See page 72.]Google Scholar
Abney, Steven Paul. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect. Ph.D. thesis, MIT. [See page 63.]Google Scholar
Aboh, Enoch Oladé. 2004. The Morphosyntax of Complement-Head Sequences: Clause Structure and Word Order Patterns in Kwa. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [See pages 81, 84, 113, 121.]Google Scholar
Adamou, Evangelia. 2011. Temporal Uses of Definite Articles and Demonstratives in Pomak (Slavic, Greece). Lingua, 121(5), 871–889. [See page 90.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adésolá, Olúsèye. 2005. Pronouns and Null Operators: A-Bar Dependencies and Relations in Yorùbá. Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers University. [See page 218.]Google Scholar
Adger, David. 2003. Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. New York: Oxford University Press. [See pages 81, 132.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adger, David, de Cat, Cécile, and Tsoulas, George (eds). 2004. Peripheries: Syntactic Edges and Their Effects. Dordrecht: Kluwer. [See pages 235, 260.]Google Scholar
Åfarli, Tor A. 1994. A Promotion Analysis of Restrictive Relative Clauses. The Linguistic Review, 11, 81–100. [See pages 58, 78.]Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2000. Classifiers: A Typology of Noun Categorization Devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [See page 89.]Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2008. Versatile Cases. Journal of Linguistics, 44, 565–603. [See page 63.]Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2013. Possession and Ownership: A Cross Linguistic Perspective. Pages 1–64 of: Aikhenvald and Dixon (2013). [See pages 89, 92, 97, 98, 167.]Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds). 2013. Possession and Ownership: A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [See pages 233, 241.]Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2003. Some Notes on the Structure of Alienable and Inalienable Possessors. Pages 167–188 of: Coene and D’hulst (2003). [See pages 88, 91, 93, 97.]Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, and Wilder, Chris (eds). 1998. Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [See pages 63, 93.]Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena, and Schäfer, Florian. 2006. The Properties of Anticausatives Crosslinguistically. Pages 187–221 of: Frascarelli (2006). [See page 159.]Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Haegeman, Liliane, and Stravou, Melita. 2007. Noun Phrase in the Generative Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [See pages 63, 69, 81, 84, 88, 156.]Google Scholar
Arsenijević, Boban. 2009. Correlatives as Types of Conditional. Pages 131–156 of: Lipták (2009a). [See pages 174, 185, 186, 193, 199.]Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon, Jelinek, Eloise, Kratzer, Angelika, and Partee, Barbara H. (eds). 1995. Quantification in Natural Languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer. [See pages 245, 246, 247, 255.]Google Scholar
Badulescu, Adriana, and Moldovan, Dan. 2008. A Semantic Scattering Model for the Automatic Interpretation of English Genitives. Natural Language Engineering, 15(2), 215–239. [See pages 88, 98.]Google Scholar
Bagchi, Tista. 1994. Bangla Correlative Pronouns, Relative Clause Order, and D-Linking. Pages 13–30 of: Butt, Miriam, King, Tracy Holloway, and Ramchand, Gillian (eds), Theoretical Perspectives on Word Order in South Asian Languages. Stanford: CSLI. [See page 2.]Google Scholar
Baltin, Mark. 2012. The Structural Signature of Pronouns. MS, New York University. [See page 69.]Google Scholar
Baltin, Mark, and Collins, Chris (eds). 2001. The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. [See pages 234, 257.]Google Scholar
Barker, Chris. 1995. Possessive Descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications. [See pages 88, 93, 98, 165.]Google Scholar
Barker, Chris. 2002. The Dynamics of Vagueness. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 1–36. [See page 183.]Google Scholar
Barwise, Jon, and Cooper, Robin. 1981. Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 159–219. [See page 166.]Google Scholar
Bernstein, Judy. 2001. The DP Hypothesis: Identifying Clausal Properties in the Nominal Domain. Pages 536–561 of: Baltin and Collins (2001). [See pages 63, 112, 114.]Google Scholar
Bernstein, Judy, and Tortora, Christina. 2005. Two Types of Possessive Forms in English. Lingua, 115(9), 1221–1242. [See page 93.]Google Scholar
Beshears, Anne. 2017. The Demonstrative Nature of the Hindi/Marwari Correlative. Ph.D. thesis, Queen Mary University of London. [See pages 195, 196.]Google Scholar
Bhat, D. N. S. 2004. Pronouns. New York: Oxford University Press. [See pages 3, 63, 69, 73, 102, 143, 209, 210, 217.]Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2002. The Raising Analysis of Relative Clauses: Evidence from Adjectival Modification. Natural Language Semantics, 10, 43–90. [See pages 58, 59, 60, 62, 78, 140.]Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2003. Locality in Correlatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21, 485–541. [See pages 72, 186, 195, 196, 197, 199, 201, 217.]Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2006. Covert Modality in Non-Finite Contexts. Berlin: de Gruyter. [See pages 38, 81.]Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh, and Pancheva, Roumyana. 2006. Conditionals. Pages 638–687 of: Everaert and van Riemsdijk (2006). [See pages 60, 172, 173, 174, 176, 183, 185, 186, 192, 199.]Google Scholar
Bhattacharya, Tanmoy. 1999a. Specificity in the Bangla DP. Pages 71–99 of: Singh, Rajendra (ed), Yearbook of South Asian Language and Linguistics, vol. 2. London: SAGE Publications. [See pages 63, 84, 86, 96.]Google Scholar
Bhattacharya, Tanmoy. 1999b. The Structure of the Bangla DP. Ph.D. thesis, University College London. [See pages 63, 81, 84, 86, 93, 96.]Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 1999. Consequences of Antisymmetry: Headed Relative Clauses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [See pages 58, 59.]Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 2011. Some Notes on the “Specificity Effects” of Optional Resumptive Pronouns. Pages 319–342 of: Rouveret (2011). [See page 148.]Google Scholar
Bittner, Maria. 2001. Topical Reference for Individuals and Possibilities. Pages 36–55 of: Hastings, Rachel, Jackson, Brendan, and Zvolenszky, Zsofia (eds), Proceedings from SALT XI. Ithaca: CLC Publications. [See pages 173, 174, 185, 186, 192.]Google Scholar
Bittner, Maria, and Hale, Ken. 1996. The Structural Determination of Case and Agreement. Linguistic Inquiry, 27(1), 1–68. [See pages 63, 160, 164.]Google Scholar
Blutner, Reinhard. 2004. Pragmatics and the Lexicon. Pages 488–514 of: Horn, Laurence R., and Ward, Gregory (eds), The Handbook of Pragmatics. Malden: Blackwell. [See page 136.]Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2003. Islands and Chains: Resumption as Stranding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [See pages 102, 148.]Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric, and Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2004. SubMove: Towards a Unified Account of Scrambling and D-Linking. Pages 241–257 of: Adger et al. (2004). [See pages 86, 211.]Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric, Hornstein, Norbert, and Nunes, Jairo. 2007. Overt Copies in Reflexive and Control Structures: A Movement Analysis. Pages 1–45 of: Conroy, Anastasia, Jing, Chunyuang, Nakao, Chizuru, and Takahashi, Eri (eds), University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 15. College Park: University of Maryland. [See pages 51, 100, 101.]Google Scholar
Boneh, Nora, and Sichel, Ivy. 2010. Deconstructing Possession. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 28, 1–40. [See pages 93, 162, 167.]Google Scholar
Bonomi, Andrea. 1997. Aspect, Quantification and When-Clauses in Italian. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 469–514. [See page 158.]Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005a. Structuring Sense, Volume I: In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [See pages 43, 112, 113, 114, 156.]Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005b. Structuring Sense, Volume II: The Normal Course of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [See page 156.]Google Scholar
Borschev, Vladimir, Paducheva, Elena V., Partee, Barbara H., Testelets, Yakov G., and Yanovich, Igor. 2008. Russian Genitives, Non-Referentiality, and the Property-Type Hypothesis. Pages 48–67 of: Antonenko, Andrei, Bailyn, John F., and Bethin, Christina Y. (eds), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL) 16. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. [See page 96.]Google Scholar
Borschev, Vladimir, and Partee, Barbara H. 2002. The Russian Genitive of Negation in Existential Sentences: The Role of Theme–Rheme Structure Reconsidered. Pages 185–250 of: Hajičová, Eva, Sgall, Petr, Hana, Jirí, and Hoskovec, Tomáš (eds), Prague Linguistic Circle Papers, vol. 4. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [See pages 126, 165.]Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2006. Case and Agreement with Genitive of Quantification in Russian. Pages 99–121 of: Boeckx, Cedric (ed), Agreement Systems. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [See pages 82, 96.]Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2014. Phases beyond Clauses. Pages 75–127 of: Schürcks, Lilia, Giannakidou, Anastasia, and Etxeberria, Urtzi (eds), The Nominal Structure in Slavic and Beyond. Berlin: de Gruyter. [See page 96.]Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko, and Nunes, Jairo. 2007. The Copy Theory of Movement: A View from PF. Pages 13–74 of: Corver and Nunes (2007). [See page 101.]Google Scholar
Bosse, Solveig, Bruening, Benjamin, and Yamada, Masahiro. 2012. Affected Experiencers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 30(4), 1185–1230. [See page 160.]Google Scholar
Brasoveanu, Adrian. 2007. Structured Nominal and Modal Reference. Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers University. [See page 76.]Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2009. Selectional Asymmetries between CP and DP Suggest that the DP Hypothesis Is Wrong. Pages 26–35 of: MacKenzie, Laurel (ed), University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 15.1. University of Pennsylvania. [See page 87.]Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2010. Ditransitive Asymmetries and a Theory of Idiom Formation. Linguistic Inquiry, 41(4), 519–562. [See page 27.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burge, Tyler. 1973. Reference and Proper Names. Journal of Philosophy, 70(14), 425–439. [See page 43.]Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2004. Crossover Situations. Natural Language Semantics, 12, 23–62. [See pages 53, 69, 70, 79, 86, 103, 105, 109.]Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2005. Binding Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [See pages 53, 102.]Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2011. Pronouns. Pages 971–996 of: von Heusinger et al. (2011). [See page 70.]Google Scholar
Cable, Seth. 2009. The Syntax of the Tibetan Correlative. Pages 195–222 of: Lipták (2009a). [See pages 192, 195, 196, 199.]Google Scholar
Cable, Seth. 2010. The Grammar of Q: Q-Particles, Wh-Movement, and Pied-Piping. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [See pages 204, 211.]Google Scholar
Campbell, Richard. 1996. Specificity Operators in SpecDP. Studia Linguistica, 50, 161– 188. [See pages 27, 63, 80, 87.]Google Scholar
Caponigro, Ivano. 2002. Free Relatives as DPs with a Silent D and a CP Complement. Pages 140–150 of: Samiian, Vida (ed), Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics 2000 (WECOL 2000). Fresno: California State University. [See page 80.]Google Scholar
Caponigro, Ivano. 2003. Free Not to Ask: On the Semantics of Free Relatives and Wh-Words Cross-Linguistically. Ph.D. thesis, UCLA. [See pages 64, 155, 210.]Google Scholar
Caponigro, Ivano. 2012. Acquiring the Meaning of Free Relative Clauses and Plural Definite Descriptions. Journal of Semantics, 29, 261–293. [See pages 64, 173.]Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna, and Giusti, Giuliana. 2017. Quantified Expressions and Quantitative Clitics. Pages 1–61 of: Everaert and van Riemsdijk (2017). [See page 82.]Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna, and Starke, Michal. 1999. The Typology of Structural Deficiency: A Case Study of the Three Classes of Pronouns. Pages 145–233 of: van Riemsdijk, Henk (ed), Clitics in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [See pages 84, 114, 164.]Google Scholar
Cariani, Fabrizio, Kaufmann, Stefan, and Kaufmann, Magdalena. 2013. Deliberative Modality under Epistemic Uncertainty. Linguistics and Philosophy, 36(3), 225–259. [See page 192.]Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory N. 1980. Reference to Kinds in English. New York: Garland. [See page 166.]Google Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo. 2004. Explaining the Locality Conditions of QR: Consequences for the Theory of Phases. Natural Language Semantics, 12, 345–397. [See pages 31, 110, 132, 133.]Google Scholar
Chang, Henry Y. 2012. Nominal Tense in Tsou: Nia and Its Syntax/Semantics. Pages 43–58 of: Graf, Thomas, Paperno, Denis, Szabolcsi, Anna, and Tellings, Jos (eds), Theories of Everything: In Honor of Ed Keenan. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics. [See page 80.]Google Scholar
Chappell, Hilary, and McGregor, William. 1989. Alienability, Inalienability and Nominal Classification. Pages 24–36 of: Hall, Kira, Meacham, Michael, and Shapiro, Richard (eds), Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 15. Berkeley, Calif.: Berkeley Linguistics Society. [See pages 89, 97, 98.]Google Scholar
Chappell, Hilary, and McGregor, William. 1996. Prolegomena to a Theory of Inalienability. Pages 3–30 of: Chappell, Hilary, and McGregor, William (eds), The Grammar of Inalienability: A Typological Perspective on Body Part Terms and the Part–Whole Relation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [See pages 89, 98.]Google Scholar
Charlow, Nate. 2011. Practical Language: Its Meaning and Use. Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan. [See page 221.]Google Scholar
Charlow, Nate. 2013. What We Know and What to Do. Synthese, 190, 2291–2323. [See page 190.]Google Scholar
Charlow, Simon, and Sharvit, Yael. 2014. Bound “De Re” Pronouns and the LFs of Attitude Reports. Semantics and Pragmatics, 7(3), 1–43. [See pages 5, 43.]Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa L.-S., and Huang, C.-T. James. 1996. Two Types of Donkey Sentences. Natural Language Semantics, 4, 121–163. [See page 71.]Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1994. Intensionality and Context Change: Towards a Dynamic Theory of Propositions and Properties. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 3, 141– 168. [See pages 17, 157.]Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1995. Dynamics of Meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [See page 75.]Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to Kinds across Languages. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 339–405. [See pages 118, 146.]Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On Wh-Movement. Pages 71–132 of: Culicover, Peter, Wasow, Tom, and Akmajian, Adrian (eds), Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press. [See page 142.]Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris. [See pages 20, 25, 31.]Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. Pages 1–52 of: Hale, Kenneth, and Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge: MIT Press. [See pages 25, 31, 101.]Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press. [See pages 20, 25, 31, 33, 61, 157, 214.]Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. Pages 89–155 of: Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan (eds), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge: MIT Press. [See pages 99, 131.]Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by Phase. Pages 1–52 of: Kenstowicz (2001). [See pages 99, 131, 132, 136.]Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. Pages 104–131 of: Belletti, Adriana (ed), Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [See page 132.]Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2007. Approaching UG from Below. Pages 1–29 of: Sauerland, Uli, and Gärtner, Hans-Martin (eds), Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [See pages 83, 87, 132.]Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On Phases. Pages 133–166 of: Freidin et al. (2008). [See page 131.]Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 1973. The Syntax of Nominalizations in Polynesian. Oceanic Linguistics, 12, 641–686. [See pages 89, 97, 157.]Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 1987. The Syntax of Chamorro Existential Sentences. Pages 191–225 of: Reuland and ter Meulen (1987). [See pages 125, 164.]Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 1998. The Design of Agreement: Evidence from Chamorro. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [See pages 66, 211.]Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra, and Ladusaw, William. 2004. Restriction and Saturation. Cambridge: MIT Press. [See page 127.]Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1995. On the Evidence for Partial N-Movement in the Romance DP. Pages 287–309 of: Italian Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [See pages 88, 117.]Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2003. The Prenominal Origin of Relative Clauses. MS, NYU Workshop on Antisymmetry and Remnant Movement. [See page 141.]Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2013. Typological Studies: Word Order and Relative Clauses. New York: Routledge. [See pages 78, 88, 140, 141, 155.]Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2015. Three Phenomena Discriminating between “Raising” and “Matching” Relative Clauses. Semantics-Syntax Interface, 2(1), 1–27. [See pages 78, 140.]Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2017. On the Double-Headed Analysis of “Headless” Relative Clauses. MS, University of Venice. [See pages 140, 154, 155.]Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2004. On Headed, Headless, and Light-Headed Relatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22(1), 95–126. [See pages 154, 155.]Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2009. What Don’t Wh-Questions, Free Relatives, and Correlatives Have in Common?. Pages 49–79 of: Lipták (2009a). [See pages 155, 192, 199, 210.]Google Scholar
Coene, Martine, and D’hulst, Yves (eds). 2003. From NP to DP, Vol. II: The Expression of Possession in Noun Phrases. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [See pages 233, 250.]Google Scholar
Collins, Chris. 2001. Aspects of Plurality in ‡ Hoan. Language, 77(3), 456–476. [See page 156.]Google Scholar
Collins, Chris. 2005. A Smuggling Approach to the Passive in English. Syntax, 8(2), 81–120. [See pages 114, 159.]Google Scholar
Collins, Chris, and Stabler, Edward. 2016. A Formalization of Minimalist Syntax. Syntax, 19, 43–78. [See pages 25, 31.]Google Scholar
Copley, Bridget, and Harley, Heidi. 2015. A Force-Theoretic Framework for Event Structure. Linguistics and Philosophy, 38(2), 103–158. [See page 155.]Google Scholar
Corver, Norbert, and Nunes, Jairo (eds). 2007. The Copy Theory of Movement. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [See pages 235, 246, 248.]Google Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth, and Hall, Daniel Currie. 2009. Argumenthood, Pronouns, and Nominal Feature Geometry. Pages 97–120 of: Ghomeshi et al. (2009b). [See pages 44, 69, 84, 112, 114, 117, 217.]Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2013. Control and the Evolution of Possessive and Existential Constructions. Pages 461–476 of: van Gelderen, Elly, Cennamo, Michela, and Barðdal, Jóhanna (eds), Argument Structure in flux. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [See pages 162, 165.]Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2014. Existential Predication in Typological Perspective. MS, University of Lyon. [See pages 125, 162, 163.]Google Scholar
Cumming, Samuel. 2008. Variabilism. Philosophical Review, 117(4), 525–554. [See pages 5, 11, 30, 43, 49, 50.]Google Scholar
Czinglar, Christine. 2000. Pure Existentials as Individual-Level Predicates: Evidence from Germanic. Wiener Linguistische Gazette, 64–65, 55–82. [See page 126.]Google Scholar
Czinglar, Christine. 2002. Decomposing Existence: Evidence from Germanic. Pages 85–126 of: Abraham, Werner, and Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter (eds), Issues in Formal German(ic) Typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [See page 126.]Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, Roberta, Franco, Irene, and Gallego, Ángel J. (eds). 2017. The Verbal Domain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [See pages 87, 113, 114, 157, 244, 256, 260, 262.]Google Scholar
Danon, Gabi. 1996. The Syntax of Hebrew Determiners. MA thesis, Tel-Aviv University. [See page 82.]Google Scholar
Danon, Gabi. 2001. Syntactic Definiteness in the Grammar of Modern Hebrew. Linguistics, 39, 1071–1116. [See pages 84, 86.]Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1967. The Logical Form of Action Sentences. Pages 105–121 of: Essays on Actions and Events, 2nd ed. New York: Clarendon Press. [See page 156.]Google Scholar
Davison, Alice. 2009. Adjunction, Features and Locality in Sanskrit and Hindi/Urdu Correlatives. Pages 223–262 of: Lipták (2009a). [See pages 195, 196, 210.]Google Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 1996. Locality in WH Quantification. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. [See pages 44, 64, 65, 155, 173, 176, 186, 188, 192, 193, 195, 196, 198, 199, 204, 217.]Google Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 2006. Multiple-Wh-Questions. Pages 275–326 of: Everaert and van Riemsdijk (2006). [See pages 211, 216.]Google Scholar
de Vries, Lourens. 1993. Forms and Functions in Kombai, an Awyu Language of Irian Jaya. Canberra: Australian National University. [See page 140.]Google Scholar
Déchaine, Rose-Marie, and Wiltschko, Martina. 2002. Decomposing Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 33, 409–442. [See pages 42, 69, 72, 73, 74, 83, 102, 217.]Google Scholar
Déchaine, Rose-Marie, and Wiltschko, Martina. 2015. When and Why Can 1st and 2nd Person Pronouns Be Bound Variables? Pages 1–50 of: Grosz, Patrick, Patel-Grosz, Pritty, and Yanovich, Igor (eds), NELS 40: Semantics Workshop on Pronouns. Amherst: GLSA. [See pages 69, 83, 102.]Google Scholar
Déchaine, Rose-Marie, and Wiltschko, Martina. 2017. A Formal Typology of Reflexives. Studia Linguistica, 71, 60–106. [See pages 69, 83, 101, 102, 217.]Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly (ed). 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge: MIT Press. [See pages 117, 125, 132.]Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Copulas. MS, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam/HIL. [See pages 91, 93, 115, 162, 167.]Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 1997. The Syntax of Possession and the Verb ‘Have’. Lingua, 101, 129–150. [See page 162.]Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1969. Relative Clauses and Possessive Phrases in Two Australian Languages. Language, 45, 35–44. [See page 92.]Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1972. The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [See pages 172, 175.]Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1980. The Languages of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [See pages 89, 92.]Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2002. Copula Clauses in Australian Languages: A Typological Perspective. Anthropological Linguistics, 44, 1–36. [See page 115.]Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2004. The Jarawara Language of Southern Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [See page 130.]Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2009. The Semantics of Clause Linking in Typological Perspective. Pages 1–55 of: Dixon and Aikhenvald (2009). [See pages 175, 192.]Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory, Volume 2: Grammatical Topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [See pages 3, 89, 93, 97, 98, 167.]Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W., and Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds). 2009. The Semantics of Clause Linking: A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [See pages 239, 260.]Google Scholar
Donati, Caterina, and Cecchetto, Carlo. 2015. (Re)labeling. Cambridge: MIT Press. [See page 58.]Google Scholar
Doron, Edit. 1982. On the Syntax and Semantics of Resumptive Pronouns. Pages 289–318 of: Rouveret (2011). [See page 148.]Google Scholar
Dowell, J. L. 2011. A Flexible Contextualist Account of Epistemic Modals. Philosophers’ Imprint, 11(14), 1–25. [See page 2.]Google Scholar
Dowell, J. L. 2012. Contextualist Solutions to Three Puzzles about Practical Conditionals. Pages 271–303 of: Shafer-Landau, Russ (ed), Oxford Studies in Metaethics, vol. 7. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [See page 190.]Google Scholar
Drummond, Alex, Kush, Dave, and Hornstein, Norbert. 2011. Minimalist Construal: Two Approaches to A and B. Pages 396–426 of: Boeckx, Cedric (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism. New York: Oxford University Press. [See pages 101, 102.]Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2005. Order of Relative Clause and Noun. Pages 366–369 of: Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew S., Gil, David, and Comrie, Bernard (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [See page 140.]Google Scholar
Dummett, Michael. 1973. Frege: Philosophy of Language, 2nd ed. London: Duckworth. [See page 207.]Google Scholar
Dunaway, Billy, and Silk, Alex. 2014. Whither Anankastics? Philosophical Perspectives, 28, 75–94. [See page 190.]Google Scholar
Egli, Urs, and von Heusinger, Klaus. 1995. The Epsilon Operator and E-Type Pronouns. Pages 121–141 of: Egli, Urs, Pause, Peter E., Schwarze, Christoph, von Stechow, Arnim, and Wienold, Gotz (eds), Lexical Knowledge in the Organization of Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [See page 44.]Google Scholar
Elbourne, Paul D. 2005. Situations and Individuals. Cambridge: MIT Press. [See pages 4, 43, 59, 69, 71, 75, 86, 109.]Google Scholar
Elbourne, Paul D. 2013. Definite Descriptions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [See pages 69, 86.]Google Scholar
Embick, David, and Noyer, Rolf. 2001. Movement Operations after Syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 32(4), 555–595. [See page 93.]Google Scholar
Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The Semantics of Specificity. Linguistic Inquiry, 22(1), 1–25. [See pages 82, 83, 84, 85, 111, 122, 123, 124, 125.]Google Scholar
Epstein, Samuel David, and Seely, T. Daniel (eds). 2002. Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program. Oxford: Blackwell. [See pages 248, 253.]Google Scholar
Español-Echevarría, Manuel. 1997. Inalienable Possession in Copulative Contexts and the DP-Structure. Lingua, 101, 211–244. [See pages 93, 167.]Google Scholar
Evans, Gareth. 1977. Pronouns, Quantifiers, and Relative Clauses (I). Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 7(3), 467–536. [See page 69.]Google Scholar
Everaert, Martin, and van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds). 2006. The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell. [See pages 234, 239, 259.]Google Scholar
Everaert, Martin, and van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds). 2017. The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd ed. Blackwell. [See pages 236, 246, 254, 256.]Google Scholar
Falco, Michelangelo, and Zamparelli, Roberto. 2016. The Only Real Pro-Nouns: Comparing English One and Italian Ne as Noun Phrase Pro-Forms. Pages 107–134 of: Grosz and Patel-Grosz (2016). [See page 73.]Google Scholar
Faller, Martina, and Hastings, Rachel. 2008. Cuzco Quechua Quantifiers. Pages 277–317 of: Matthewson (2008). [See pages 84, 124, 125.]Google Scholar
Fara, Delia Graff. 2015. Names Are Predicates. Philosophical Review, 124, 59–117. [See page 43.]Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka. 1981. Quantifier Scope and Syntactic Islands. Pages 59–66 of: Hendrik, Roberta, Masek, Carrie, and Miller, Mary Frances (eds), Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 17. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. [See page 63.]Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai. 1994. Restrictions on Quantifier Domains. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. [See pages 10, 71, 85, 86, 173, 183, 185, 186, 187, 188.]Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai. 1998a. Evidence for Presuppositional Indefinites. MS, MIT. [See page 112.]Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai. 1998b. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Quantifier Domains. Vilem Mathesius Lectures, Prague. [See page 83.]Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai, and Heim, Irene. 2011. Intensional Semantics. MS, MIT. [See pages 13, 22, 29, 48.]Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai, and Iatridou, Sabine. 2005. What to Do If You Want to Go to Harlem: Anankastic Conditionals and Related Matters. MS, MIT. [See page 189.]Google Scholar
Fodor, Janet Dean. 1970. The Linguistic Description of Opaque Contexts. Ph.D. thesis, MIT. [See page 37.]Google Scholar
Fodor, Janet Dean, and Sag, Ivan A. 1982. Referential and Quantificational Indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy, 5, 355–398. [See pages 63, 69.]Google Scholar
Folli, Raffaella, and Harley, Heidi. 2007. Causation, Obligation, and Argument Structure: On the Nature of Little v. Linguistic Inquiry, 38(2), 197–238. [See pages 115, 157, 161.]Google Scholar
Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and Semantic Interpretation. Cambridge: MIT Press. [See pages 25, 31, 59, 62, 214.]Google Scholar
Fox, Danny. 2002. Antecedent-Contained Deletion and the Copy Theory of Movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 33(1), 63–96. [See pages 25, 30, 32, 59, 62, 179.]Google Scholar
Fox, Danny. 2003. On Logical Form. Pages 82–123 of: Hendrick, Randall (ed), Minimalist Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell. [See pages 32, 62.]Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 2013. Possession in Wandala. Pages 243–260 of: Aikhenvald and Dixon (2013). [See pages 89, 92.]Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, and Johnston, Eric. 2005. A Grammar of Mina. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [See page 155.]Google Scholar
Francez, Itamar. 2007. Existential Propositions. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University. [See pages 111, 125, 126, 165, 166.]Google Scholar
Francez, Itamar. 2009. Existentials, Predication, and Modification. Linguistics and Philosophy, 21(1), 1–50. [See page 126.]Google Scholar
Francez, Itamar. 2010. Context Dependence and Implicit Arguments in Existentials. Linguistics and Philosophy, 33, 11–30. [See pages 126, 166.]Google Scholar
Francez, Itamar, and Goldring, Katja. 2012. Quantifiers in Modern Hebrew. Pages 347–397 of: Keenan and Paperno (2012). [See page 82.]Google Scholar
Franco, Ludovico. 2013. A Typological Rarum in Sogdian: Overt Complmentizers in Indicative Root Clauses. Lingua Posnaniensis, 55(1), 55–67. [See page 33.]Google Scholar
Frank, Anette. 1996. Context Dependence in Modal Constructions. Ph.D. thesis, University of Stuttgart. [See page 189.]Google Scholar
Franks, Steven. 1994. Parametric Properties of Numeral Phrases in Slavic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 12, 570–649. [See pages 82, 113.]Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara (ed). 2006. Phases of Interpretation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [See pages 233, 251.]Google Scholar
Freeze, Ray. 1992. Existentials and Other Locatives. Language, 68, 553–595. [See pages 162, 165, 167.]Google Scholar
Freeze, Ray. 2001. Existential Constructions. Pages 941–953 of: Haspelmath et al. (2001). [See pages 162, 167.]Google Scholar
Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos P., and Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa (eds). 2008. Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge: MIT Press. [See pages 237, 253.]Google Scholar
Fukui, Naoki, and Speas, Margaret. 1986. Specifiers and Projection. Pages 128–172 of: Fukui, Naoki, Rapoport, Tova R., and Sagey, Elizabeth (eds), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 8: Papers in Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: MITWPL. [See page 63.]Google Scholar
Furbee, N. Louanna. 1973. Subordinate Clauses in Tojolabal-Maya. Pages 9–22 of: Corum, Claudia, Smith-Stark, Thomas Cedric, and Weiser, Ann (eds), Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 9. Chicago: CLS. [See page 173.]Google Scholar
Gair, James W. 1998. Studies in South Asian Linguistics: Sinhala and Other South Asian Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [See page 3.]Google Scholar
Gair, James W., Lust, Barbara, Subbarao, K.V., and Wali, Kashi (eds). 1999. Lexical Anaphors and Pronouns in Selected South Asian Languages: A Principled Typology. Berlin: de Gruyter. [See pages 3, 73, 209, 217.]Google Scholar
George, Benjamin. 2011. Question Embedding and the Semantics of Answers. Ph.D. thesis, UCLA. [See page 211.]Google Scholar
Geurts, Bart. 1997. Good News about the Description Theory of Names. Journal of Semantics, 14, 319–348. [See pages 43, 50.]Google Scholar
Geurts, Bart. 2004. On an Ambiguity in Quantified Conditionals. MS, University of Nijmegen. [See page 189.]Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila, and Massam, Diane. 2009. The Proper D Connection. Pages 67–95 of: Ghomeshi et al. (2009b). [See page 43.]Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila, Paul, Ileana, and Wiltschko, Martina. 2009a. Determiners: Universals and Variation. Pages 1–21 of: Ghomeshi et al. (2009b). [See page 44.]Google Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila, Paul, Ileana, and Wiltschko, Martina (eds). 2009b. Determiners: Universals and Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [See pages 238, 242.]Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2004. Domain Restriction and the Arguments of Quantificational Determiners. Pages 110–126 of: Young, Robert B. (ed), Proceedings of SALT 14. Ithaca: CLC Publications. [See page 97.]Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia, and Rathert, Monika (eds). 2009. Quantification, Definiteness, and Nominalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [See pages 244, 253.]Google Scholar
Gil, David. 2013. Genitives, Adjectives and Relative Clauses. In: Dryer, Matthew S., and Haspelmath, Martin (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. wals.info/chapter/60. [See pages 88, 92, 93, 140.]Google Scholar
Gil, Kook-Hee, Harlow, Stephen, and Tsoulas, George (eds). 2013. Strategies of Quantification. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [See pages 114, 253.]Google Scholar
Gillon, Carrie. 2013. The Semantics of Determiners: Domain Restriction in Skwxwú7mesh. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. [See pages 82, 84, 85, 86.]Google Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana. 1991. The Categorial Status of Quantified Nominals. Linguistiche Berichte, 136, 438–452. [See pages 81, 117.]Google Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana. 1992. Heads and Modifiers among Determiners: Evidence from Romanian and German. Pages 1–19 of: University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 1.3. University of Venice. [See pages 81, 86, 117.]Google Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana. 1997. The Categorial Status of Determiners. Pages 95–123 of: Haegeman, Liliane (ed), The New Comparative Syntax. London: Longman. [See pages 81, 84, 86, 117.]Google Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana. 2002. The Functional Structure of Noun Phrases: A Bare Phrase Structure Approach. Pages 54–90 of: Cinque, Guglielmo (ed), Functional Structure in DP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press. [See pages 27, 63, 80, 84, 86, 114.]Google Scholar
Gorrie, Colin, Kellner, Alexandra, and Massam, Diane. 2010. Determiners in Niuean. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 30(3), 349–365. [See page 84.]Google Scholar
Gračanin-Yuksek, Martina. 2008. Free Relatives in Croation: An Argument for the Comp Account. Linguistic Inquiry, 39(2), 275–294. [See pages 64, 78, 155, 210.]Google Scholar
Groat, Erich, and O’Neil, John. 1996. Spell-Out at the LF Interface. Pages 113–139 of: Abraham, Werner, Epstein, Samuel David, Thráinsson, Höskuldur, and Zwart, Jan-Wouter (eds), Minimal Ideas: Syntactic Studies in the Minimalist Framework. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [See page 31.]Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Roelofsen, Floris. 2009. Inquisitive Semantics and Pragmatics. MS, ILLC. [See page 221.]Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Stokhof, Martin. 1984. Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam. [See pages 205, 209, 211.]Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Stokhof, Martin. 1991. Dynamic Predicate Logic. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14, 39–100. [See pages 17, 75.]Google Scholar
Grosu, Alexander. 2002. Strange Relatives at the Interface of Two Millennia. Glot International, 6(6), 145–167. [See pages 78, 142, 153, 155.]Google Scholar
Grosu, Alexander. 2012. Towards a More Articulated Typology of Internally Headed Relative Constructions: The Semantics Connection. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(7), 447–476. [See pages 153, 155.]Google Scholar
Grosu, Alexander, and Landman, Fred. 1998. Strange Relatives of the Third Kind. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 125–170. [See pages 64, 153, 155, 176, 198.]Google Scholar
Grosz, Patrick, and Patel-Grosz, Pritty (eds). 2016. The Impact of Pronominal Form on Interpretation. Berlin: de Gruyter. [See pages 69, 217, 241, 262.]Google Scholar
Guéron, Jacqueline, and Hoekstra, Teun. 1995. The Temporal Interpretation of Predication. Pages 77–107 of: Cardinaletti, Anna, and Guasti, Maria-Teresa (eds), Small Clauses. San Diego: Academic Press. [See pages 27, 63.]Google Scholar
Guéron, Jacqueline, and Lecarme, Jacqueline (eds). 2004. The Syntax of Time. Cambridge: MIT Press. [See pages 249, 250.]Google Scholar
Gutiérrez-Bravo, Rodrigo. 2012. Relative Clauses in Yucatec Maya: Light Heads vs. Null Domain. Pages 253–268 of: Comrie, Bernard, and Estrada-Fernández, Zarina (eds), Relative Clauses in Languages of the Americas: A Typological Overview. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [See page 152.]Google Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine. 2006. Aspects of Modality. Ph.D. thesis, MIT. [See pages 4, 27, 158.]Google Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine. 2009. On the Interaction of Aspect and Modal Auxiliaries. Linguistics and Philosophy, 32(3), 279–315. [See page 158.]Google Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine. 2010. On the Event Relativity of Modal Auxiliaries. Natural Language Semantics, 18(1), 79–114. [See pages 4, 8, 27, 158.]Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2010. The Movement Derivation of Conditional Clauses. Linguistic Inquiry, 41(4), 595–621. [See page 174.]Google Scholar
Haïk, Isabelle. 1984. Indirect Binding. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 185–223. [See pages 103, 109.]Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1985. Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [See pages 89, 97.]Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth. 1976. The Adjoined Relative Clause in Australia. Pages 78–105 of: Dixon, R. M. W. (ed), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. [See pages 174, 192.]Google Scholar
Hallman, Peter. 2016. Universal Quantification as Degree Modification in Arabic. Glossa, 1(1), 26, 1–31. [See pages 82, 86.]Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge, and Mikkelsen, Line. 2012. CP Complements to D. MS, UC Santa Cruz and UC Berkeley. [See page 80.]Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, Events and Licensing. Ph.D. thesis, MIT. [See pages 96, 115, 161, 162, 167.]Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2002. Possession and the Double Object Construction. Yearbook of Linguistic Variation, 2, 29–68. [See pages 162, 167.]Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2005. How Do Verbs Get Their Names? Denominal Verbs, Manner Incorporation, and the Ontology of Verb Roots in English. Pages 42–64 of: Erteschik-Shir, Nomi, and Rapoport, Tova (eds), The Syntax of Aspect: Deriving Thematic and Aspectual Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [See page 156.]Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2009. The Morphology of Nominalizations and the Syntax of vP. Pages 320–342 of: Giannakidou and Rathert (2009). [See pages 113, 114, 143.]Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2013. External Arguments and the Mirror Principle: On the Distinctness of Voice and v. Lingua, 125, 34–57. [See pages 87, 113, 114, 143, 159, 160.]Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2017. The “Bundling” Hypothesis and the Disparate Functions of Little v. Pages 3–28 of: D’Alessandro et al. (2017). [See pages 87, 113, 114, 143, 159.]Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi, and Jung, Hyun Kyoung. 2015. In Support of the Phave Analysis of the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 46(4), 703–730. [See pages 160, 164.]Google Scholar
Harlow, Ray. 2007. Maori: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [See pages 89, 98, 157.]Google Scholar
Hartmann, Jutta M. 2008. Expletives in Existentials: English There and German Da. Ph.D. thesis, Tilburg University. [See pages 83, 84, 126, 127.]Google Scholar
Hartmann, Jutta M., and Milićević, Nataša. 2009. Case Alternations in Serbian Existentials. Pages 131–142 of: Zybatow, Gerhild, Junghanns, Uwe, Lenertova, Denisa, and Biskup, Petr (eds), Studies in Formal Slavic Phonology, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics and Information Structure. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. [See pages 82, 96, 163.]Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1995. Diachronic Sources of ‘All’ and ‘Every’. Pages 363–382 of: Bach et al. (1995). [See pages 81, 217.]Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [See pages 81, 209, 217.]Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2017. Explaining Alienability Contrasts in Adpossessive Constructions: Predictability vs. Iconicity. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 36(2), 193–231. [See pages 89, 97.]Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, König, Ekkehard, and Oesterreicher, Wulf (eds). 2001. Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook. Berlin: de Gruyter. [See pages 242, 248.]Google Scholar
Hastings, Rachel. 2004. The Syntax and Semantics of Relativization and Quantification: The Case of Quechua. Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University. [See pages 78, 142, 155.]Google Scholar
Hawthorne, John, and Manley, David. 2012. The Reference Book. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [See page 43.]Google Scholar
Hazout, Ilan. 2004. The Syntax of Existential Constructions. Linguistic Inquiry, 35(3), 393–430. [See pages 125, 134, 164, 166.]Google Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 2008. A Grammar of Jamsay. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [See pages 92, 140.]Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst. [See pages 69, 74, 75.]Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1990. E-Type Pronouns and Donkey Anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 137–177. [See page 69.]Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 2008. Features on Bound Pronouns. Pages 35–56 of: Harbour, Daniel, Adger, David, and Béjar, Susana (eds), Phi Theory: Phi-Features across Modules and Interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [See pages 11, 17, 69, 132.]Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 2012. Lecture Notes for 24.973: Advanced Semantics. MIT. [See pages 27, 204, 213.]Google Scholar
Heim, Irene, and Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. [See pages 8, 11, 17, 25, 30, 32, 58, 60, 69, 88, 99, 100, 102, 107, 213.]Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces, and Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [See pages 89, 91, 92, 97, 98, 165, 167.]Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, and Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [See pages 73, 81, 89, 92, 113, 165, 210, 217.]Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike, and Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [See page 89.]Google Scholar
Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2016. NP-Internal Possessive Constructions in Hoocąk and Other Siouan Languages. Pages 425–463 of: Rudin, Catherine, and Gordon, Bryan J. (eds), Advances in the Study of Siouan Languages and Linguistics. Berlin: Language Science Press. [See pages 89, 167.]Google Scholar
Hestvik, Arild. 1992. LF Movement of Pronouns and Antisubject Orientation. Linguistic Inquiry, 23(4), 557–594. [See page 73.]Google Scholar
Hestvik, Arild, and Philip, William. 2000. Binding and Coreference in Norwegian Child Language. Language Acquisition, 8(3), 171–235. [See page 74.]Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus. 2002. Specificity and Definiteness in Sentence and Discourse Structure. Journal of Semantics, 19, 245–274. [See pages 44, 84.]Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus. 2011. Specificity. Pages 1025–1058 of: von Heusinger et al. (2011). [See pages 44, 63, 65, 69, 84.]Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus, Maienborn, Claudia, and Portner, Paul (eds). 2011. Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol. 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [See pages 236, 245, 253, 260.]Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2016. Notes on “Noun Phrase Structure” in Tagalog. Pages 319–341 of: Fleischhauer, Jens, Latrouite, Anja, and Osswald, Rainer (eds), Explorations of the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press. [See pages 80, 96.]Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2005. Dimensions of Symmetry in Syntax: Agreement and Clausal Architecture. Ph.D. thesis, MIT. [See pages 58, 63, 65, 76, 80, 81, 87, 96, 114, 132, 142, 144, 154, 156.]Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2017. Internally Headed Relative Clauses. Pages 1–30 of: Everaert and van Riemsdijk (2017). [See pages 58, 76, 142, 155.]Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, Ken, Akanlig-Pare, George, Atintono, Samuel, Bodomo, Adams, Essizewa, Komlan, and Hudu, Fusheini. 2017. A Comparative Syntax of Internally-Headed Relative Clauses in Gur. Glossa, 2(1), 1–30. [See pages 65, 76, 80, 139, 153, 154, 155.]Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F., and Altmann, Stuart A. 1968. A Note on Design Features. Pages 61–72 of: Sebeok, Thomas A. (ed), Animal Communication: Techniques of Study and Results of Research. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. [See page 1.]Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 1993. On the Structure of Predicate NP. Studia Linguistica, 47(2), 126–138. [See page 86.]Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen. 1995. On the Characterization of the Weak-Strong Distinction. Pages 421–450 of: Bach et al. (1995). [See page 84.]Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal. Oxford: Blackwell. [See pages 25, 69, 101, 102.]Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2007. Pronouns in a Minimalist Setting. Pages 351–385 of: Corver and Nunes (2007). [See pages 69, 101.]Google Scholar
Hyslop, Catriona. 2001. The Lolovoli Dialect of the North-East Ambae Language, Vanuatu. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. [See page 90.]Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine. 1991. Topics in Conditionals. Ph.D. thesis, MIT. [See pages 60, 173, 183, 185, 186, 199.]Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine. 1994. On the Contribution of Conditional Then. Natural Language Semantics, 2, 171–199. [See pages 185, 186, 199.]Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine. 2013. Looking for Free Relatives in Turkish (and the Unexpected Places This Leads to). Pages 129–152 of: Özge, Umut (ed), Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL8). Cambridge: MITWPL. [See page 185.]Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine, and Kroch, Anthony. 1993. The Licensing of CP-Recursion and Its Relevance to the Germanic Verb-Second Phenomenon. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 50, 1–24. [See pages 184, 185, 186, 228.]Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine, Anagnostopoulou, Elena, and Izvorski, Roumyana. 2001. Observations about the Form and Meaning of the Perfect. Pages 153–205 of: Kenstowicz (2001). [See page 142.]Google Scholar
Ihsane, Tabea, and Puskás, Genoveva. 2001. Specific Is Not Definite. Pages 39–54 of: Shlonsky, Ur, and Ihsane, Tabea (eds), Generative Grammar in Geneva 2. University of Geneva. [See pages 27, 63, 80, 84.]Google Scholar
Ilkhanipour, Negin. 2016. Tense and Modality in the Nominal Domain. Linguistica, 56, 143–160. [See pages 63, 80.]Google Scholar
Ionin, Tania, and Matushansky, Ora. 2006. The Composition of Complex Cardinals. Journal of Semantics, 23(4), 315–360. [See pages 113, 117.]Google Scholar
Irwin, Patricia. 2018. Existential Unaccusativity and New Discourse Referents. Glossa, 3(1), 24. [See pages 126, 127.]Google Scholar
Isaacs, James, and Rawlins, Kyle. 2008. Conditional Questions. Journal of Semantics, 25, 269–319. [See page 221.]Google Scholar
Izvorski, Roumyana. 1996. The Syntax and Semantics of Correlative Proforms. Pages 133–147 of: Kusumoto, Kiyomi (ed), Proceedings of NELS 26. Amherst: GLSA Publications. [See pages 183, 186, 199, 200, 217.]Google Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. 1995. On the Quantificational Force of English Free Relatives. Pages 451–486 of: Bach et al. (1995). [See pages 64, 173, 176.]Google Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. 2000. Paycheck Pronouns, Bach-Peters Sentences, and Variable-Free Semantics. Natural Language Semantics, 8, 77–155. [See page 69.]Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, K. M. 1997. The ‘Default De Re’ Principle for the Interpretation of Belief Utterances. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 315–336. [See page 45.]Google Scholar
Jensen, Per Anker, and Vikner, Carl. 1994. Lexical Knowledge and the Semantic Analysis of Danish Genitive Constructions. Pages 37–55 of: Hansen, Steffen L., and Wegener, Helle (eds), Topics in Knowledge-Based NLP Systems. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur. [See pages 90, 94.]Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: George Allen & Unwin. [See pages 91, 217.]Google Scholar
Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel L. 2012. A New Look at Subject Islands: The Phasehood of Definiteness. Anglica Wratislaviensia, 50, 137–168. [See page 132.]Google Scholar
Johnson, Kyle. 2012. Toward Deriving Differences in How Wh Movement and QR Are Pronounced. Lingua, 122, 529–553. [See pages 4, 30, 32, 211.]Google Scholar
Julien, Marit. 2005. Noun Phrases from a Scandinavian Perspective. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [See page 81.]Google Scholar
Julien, Marit. 2015. Theme Vowels in North Sámi: Spanning and Maximal Expression. Lingua, 164, 1–24. [See pages 113, 114, 155, 156, 159.]Google Scholar
Kadmon, Nirit. 1987. On Unique and Non-Unique Reference and Asymmetric Quantification. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst. [See page 74.]Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans. 1981. A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation. Pages 277–322 of: Groenendijk, Jeroen, Janssen, T., and Stokhof, M. (eds), Formal Methods in the Study of Language. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre. [See pages 69, 74, 75.]Google Scholar
Kaplan, David. 1989. Demonstratives. Pages 481–563 of: Almog, Joseph, Perry, John, and Wettstein, Howard (eds), Themes from Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [See pages 2, 4, 13.]Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and Semantics of Questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, 3–44. [See pages 209, 211, 212.]Google Scholar
Katzir, Roni. 2011. Morphosemantic Mismatches, Structural Economy, and Licensing. Linguistic Inquiry, 42, 45–82. [See page 164.]Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1993. Toward a Modular Theory of Auxiliary Selection. Studia Linguistica, 47, 3–31. [See pages 93, 162.]Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. [See pages 38, 58, 80, 87, 91, 93, 162.]Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 2002. Pronouns and Their Antecedents. Pages 133–166 of: Epstein and Seely (2002). [See pages 99, 102.]Google Scholar
Kazuhiro, Masutomi. 2010. On Nominal Phase and Its Interpretation: A Minimalist Approach. Annals of the Institute for Research in Humanities and Social Sciences, 19, 1–19. [See page 132.]Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1987. A Semantic Definition of “Indefinite NP”. Pages 286–317 of: Reuland and ter Meulen (1987). [See pages 122, 126, 166.]Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 2002. Some Properties of Natural Language Quantifiers: Generalized Quantifier Theory. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 627–654. [See page 122.]Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L., and Paperno, Denis (eds). 2012. Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural Language. Dordrecht: Springer. [See pages 82, 241.]Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher. 2007. Vagueness and Grammar: The Semantics of Relative and Absolute Gradable Adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30(1), 1–45. [See pages 9, 183.]Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher. 2014. Predicates and Formulas: Evidence from Ellipsis. Pages 253–277 of: Crnič, Luka, and Sauerland, Uli (eds), The Art and Craft of Semantics: A Festschrift for Irene Heim, vol. 1. Cambridge: MITWPL. [See pages 4, 25, 31.]Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael (ed). 2001. Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge: MIT Press. [See pages 237, 246.]Google Scholar
Kim, Ji-yung, Lander, Yury A., and Partee, Barbara H. (eds). 2004. Possessives and Beyond: Semantics and Syntax. Amherst: GLSA. [See page 93.]Google Scholar
King, Jeffrey C. 2004. Context Dependent Quantifiers and Donkey Anaphora. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 34 (supplement 1), 97–127. [See pages 149, 151.]Google Scholar
Kobele, Greg. 2010. Inverse Linking via Function Composition. Natural Language Semantics, 18, 183–196. [See pages 4, 18, 22, 25, 31, 105.]Google Scholar
Kolodny, Niko, and MacFarlane, John. 2010. Ifs and Oughts. Journal of Philosophy, 115–143. [See pages 190, 191, 192.]Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda. 1984. The Syntax of Verbs: From Verb Movement Rules in the Kru Languages to Universal Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. [See page 28.]Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda. 2003. Inside the “Noun” in Maasai. Pages 77–116 of: Mahajan, Anoop (ed), Head Movement and Syntactic Theory. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics. [See pages 80, 88.]Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda. 2005. On the Parallelism of DPs and Clauses: Evidence from Kisongo Maasai. Pages 281–302 of: Carnie, Andrew, Harley, Heidi, and Dooley, Sheila Ann (eds), Verb First: On the Syntax of Verb-Initial Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [See pages 63, 80, 88.]Google Scholar
van Koppen, Marjo. 2007. Agreement with (the Internal Structure of) Copies of Movement. Pages 327–350 of: Corver and Nunes (2007). [See pages 71, 219.]Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1996. Possessive Noun Phrases in Maltese: Alienability, Iconicity and Grammaticalization. Rivista di Linguistica, 8(1), 245–274. [See pages 89, 90, 97, 98.]Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2001. Adnominal Possession. Pages 960–970 of: Haspelmath et al. (2001). [See page 89.]Google Scholar
Kracht, Marcus. 2002. On the Semantics of Locatives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 157–232. [See pages 126, 157.]Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1977. What ‘Must’ and ‘Can’ Must and Can Mean. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, 337–355. [See page 29.]Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The Notional Category of Modality. Pages 38–74 of: Eikmeyer, Hans-Jürgen, and Rieser, Hannes (eds), Words, Worlds, and Contexts: New Approaches in Word Semantics. Berlin: de Gruyter. [See pages 29, 173, 187.]Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Modality/Conditionals. Pages 639–656 of: von Stechow, Arnim, and Wunderlich, Dieter (eds), Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. New York: de Gruyter. [See pages 173, 187.]Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. Stage-Level and Individual-Level Predicates. Pages 125–175 of: Carlson, Gregory N., and Pelletier, Francis Jeffrey (eds), The Generic Book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [See page 71.]Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the External Argument from Its Verb. Pages 109–137 of: Rooryck, Johan, and Zaring, Laurie (eds), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer. [See pages 87, 114, 157, 161.]Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1998a. More Structural Analogies between Pronouns and Tenses. Pages 92–110 of: Strolovitch, Devon, and Lawson, Aaron (eds), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 8. Ithaca: CLC Publications. [See pages 13, 63, 158.]Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1998b. Scope or Pseudoscope? Are There Wide-Scope Indefinites?. Pages 163–196 of: Rothstein, Susan (ed), Events and Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. [See pages 44, 63, 69.]Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2004. Telicity and the Meaning of Objective Case. Pages 389–424 of: Guéron and Lecarme (2004). [See page 25.]Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2009. Making a Pronoun: Fake Indexicals as Windows into the Properties of Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 40, 187–237. [See pages 13, 66, 69, 101, 102, 132, 211, 217, 219.]Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika, and Shimoyama, Junko. 2002. Indeterminate Pronouns: The View from Japanese. Pages 1–25 of: Otsu, Yukio (ed), Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo. [See pages 209, 211.]Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1989. Nominal Reference, Temporal Constitution, and Quantification in Event Semantics. Pages 75–115 of: Bartsch, Renate, van Bentham, Johan, and van Emde Boas, Peter (eds), Semantics and Contextual Expressions. Dordrecht: Foris. [See page 74.]Google Scholar
Kripke, Saul. 1979. A Puzzle about Belief. Pages 239–283 of: Margalit, Avishai (ed), Meaning and Use. Dordrecht: Reidel. [See pages 43, 48.]Google Scholar
Kripke, Saul. 1980. Naming and Necessity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [See page 43.]Google Scholar
Kupisch, Tanja, and Koops, Christian. 2007. The Definite Article in Non-Specific Object Noun Phrases: Comparing French and Italian. Pages 189–214 of: Stark, Elisabeth, Leiss, Elisabeth, and Abraham, Werner (eds), Nominal Determination: Typology, Context Constraints, and Historical Emergence. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [See page 86.]Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William. 1982. Semantic Constraints on the English Partitive Construction. Pages 231–242 of: Flickinger, Daniel P., Macken, Marlys, and Wiegand, Nancy (eds), WCCFL 1: Proceedings of the 1st West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford: CSLI Publications. [See page 97.]Google Scholar
Laenzlinger, Christopher. 2005. French Adjective Ordering: Perspectives on DP Internal Movement Types. Lingua, 115, 645–689. [See pages 63, 80.]Google Scholar
Lamontagne, Greg, and Travis, Lisa. 1987. The Syntax of Adjacency. Pages 173–186 of: Crowhurst, Megan (ed), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 6. Stanford: CSLI. [See page 160.]Google Scholar
Landman, Fred. 2003. Predicate-Argument Mismatches and the Adjectival Theory of Indefinites. Pages 211–238 of: Coene and D’hulst (2003). [See pages 117, 118.]Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1995. Possession and Possessive Constructions. Pages 51–80 of: Taylor, John R., and MacLaury, Robert E. (eds), Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [See pages 98, 165.]Google Scholar
Larson, Brooke. 2016. The Representation of Syntactic Action at a Distance: Multidominance versus the Copy Theory. Glossa, 1(1), 1–18. [See page 25.]Google Scholar
Larson, Richard, and Cho, Sungeun. 2003. Temporal Adjectives and the Structure of Possessive DPs. Natural Language Semantics, 11, 217–247. [See pages 91, 165.]Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 2003. Event Descriptions in Fon and Hatian Creole. Pages 67–90 of: Adone, Dany (ed), Recent Development in Creole Studies. Tübingen: Niemeyer. [See page 80.]Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 2014. On Shell Structure. New York: Routledge. [See pages 63, 80, 160.]Google Scholar
Lasersohn, Peter. 1996. Adnominal Conditionals. Pages 154–166 of: Galloway, Teresa, and Spence, Justin (eds), Proceedings of SALT 6. Ithaca: CLC Publications. [See pages 172, 178.]Google Scholar
Lasersohn, Peter. 2009. Relative Truth, Speaker Commitment, and Control of Implicit Arguments. Synthese, 166, 359–374. [See page 2.]Google Scholar
Law, Paul. 2011. Some Syntactic and Semantic Properties of the Existential Construction in Malagasy. Lingua, 121, 1588–1630. [See pages 80, 127, 164.]Google Scholar
Law, Paul. 2014. A Unified Theory of Relative Clauses. Pages 203–221 of: Park, Jong-Un, and Lee, Il-Jae (eds), SICOGG 16. Seoul: The Korean Generative Grammar Circle. [See pages 141, 155.]Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David. 1983. A Distributional Difference between Reciprocals and Reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry, 14, 723–730. [See page 101.]Google Scholar
Lecarme, Jacqueline. 1996. Tense in the Nominal System: The Somali DP. Pages 159–178 of: Lecarme, Jacqueline, Lowenstamm, Jean, and Shlonsky, Ur (eds), Studies in Afroasiatic Grammar. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. [See pages 63, 81, 83, 84, 86, 90, 97, 130.]Google Scholar
Lecarme, Jacqueline. 1999a. Focus in Somali. Pages 275–309 of: Rebuschi, Georges, and Tuller, Laurie (eds), The Grammar of Focus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [See pages 33, 83, 210.]Google Scholar
Lecarme, Jacqueline. 1999b. Nominal Tense and Tense Theory. Pages 333–354 of: Corblin, Francis, Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen, and Marandin, Jean-Marie (eds), Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics 2. The Hague: Thesus. [See pages 27, 63, 82, 84, 86, 90, 97, 130.]Google Scholar
Lecarme, Jacqueline. 2004. Tense in Nominals. Pages 441–475 of: Guéron and Lecarme (2004). [See pages 27, 81, 90, 93, 96, 97, 114, 130.]Google Scholar
Lecarme, Jacqueline. 2008. Tense and Modality in Nominals. Pages 195–226 of: Guéron, Jacqueline, and Lecarme, Jacqueline (eds), Time and Modality. Springer. [See pages 63, 80, 81, 83, 85, 88, 114, 130, 174, 217.]Google Scholar
Lecarme, Jacqueline. 2012. Nominal Tense. Pages 696–718 of: Binnick, Robert I. (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [See pages 80, 114, 217.]Google Scholar
Lechner, Winfried. 2006. An Interpretive Effect of Head Movement. Pages 45–71 of: Frascarelli (2006). [See page 27.]Google Scholar
Leckie, Gail. 2013. The Double Life of Names. Philosophical Studies, 165, 1139–1160. [See page 136.]Google Scholar
Lee, Felicia. 2003. Anaphoric R-Expressions as Bound Variables. Syntax, 6, 84–114. [See pages 4, 51, 100, 101.]Google Scholar
Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera. 2006. German Possessor Datives: Raised and Affected. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 9(2), 101–142. [See page 98.]Google Scholar
Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera. 2007. Beyond Coherence: The Syntax of Opacity in German. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [See page 132.]Google Scholar
Lees, Robert B. 1960. The Grammar of English Nominalization. The Hague: Mouton. [See pages 58, 78, 140.]Google Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2014. Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. Cambridge: MIT Press. [See pages 87, 113, 114, 159.]Google Scholar
Leung, Tommi Tsz-Cheung. 2009. On the Matching Requirement in Correlatives. Pages 309–341 of: Lipták (2009a). [See page 196.]Google Scholar
Levinson, Lisa. 2007. The Roots of Verbs. Ph.D. thesis, New York University. [See pages 113, 114, 155, 156.]Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1975. Adverbs of Quantification. Pages 3–15 of: Keenan, Edward L. (ed), Formal Semantics of Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [See pages 74, 173, 187.]Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1979. Attitudes De Dicto and De Se. Philosophical Review, 88, 513–543. [See page 60.]Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1980. Index, Context, and Content. Pages 79–100 of: Kanger, Stig, and Öhman, Helle (eds), Philosophy and Grammar. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. [See pages 4, 10, 207.]Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1985. Possessive Constructions in Oceanic Languages and in Proto-Oceanic. Pages 93–140 of: Pawley, Andrew, and Carrington, Lois (eds), Austronesian Linguistics at the 15th Pacific Science Congress. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. [See pages 89, 97.]Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 2002. The Possessive-Benefactive Connection. Oceanic Linguistics, 41(2), 439–474. [See page 89.]Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 2008. A Grammar of Toqabaqita. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [See page 175.]Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 2009a. Attributive Possessive Constructions in Oceanic. Pages 249–292 of: McGregor (2009). [See page 97.]Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 2009b. Oceanic Possessive Classifiers. Oceanic Linguistics, 48(2), 379–402. [See pages 89, 90, 92, 97.]Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek, Vaid, Jyotsna, and Chen, Hsin-Chin. 2011. On the Interpretation of Alienable vs. Inalienable Possession: A Psycholinguistic Investigation. Cognitive Linguistics, 22, 659–689. [See pages 88, 98.]Google Scholar
Link, Godehard. 1983. The Logical Analysis of Plurals and Mass Terms: A Lattice-Theoretical Approach. Pages 127–146 of: Portner, Paul, and Partee, Barbara H. (eds), Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings. Malden: Blackwell. [See pages 74, 113, 176.]Google Scholar
Lipták, Anikó (ed). 2009a. Correlatives Cross-Linguistically. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [See pages 233, 236, 238, 239, 251, 252.]Google Scholar
Lipták, Anikó. 2009b. The Landscape of Correlatives: An Empirical and Analytical Survey. Pages 1–46 of: Lipták (2009a). [See pages 192, 195, 199, 217.]Google Scholar
Lipták, Anikó. 2012. Correlative Topicalization. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 59, 245–302. [See pages 72, 185, 186, 196, 199, 200.]Google Scholar
Löbel, Elisabeth. 1989. Q as a Functional Category. Pages 133–158 of: Bhatt, Christa, Löbel, Elisabeth, and Schmidt, Claudia Maria (eds), Syntactic Phrase Structure Phenomena in Noun Phrases and Sentences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [See page 81.]Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and Proper names: A Theory of N-Movement in Syntax and Logical Form. Linguistic Inquiry, 25(4), 609–665. [See pages 43, 63.]Google Scholar
Luján, Marta. 2004. Determiners as Pronouns. Pages 129–148 of: Castro, Ana, Ferreira, Marcelo, Hacquard, Valentine, and Salanova, Andres (eds), Romance, Op. 47: Collected Papers on Romance Syntax. Cambridge: MITWPL. [See pages 27, 63, 73, 80, 83, 88, 217.]Google Scholar
Lynch, John. 1973. Verbal Aspects of Possession in Melanesian Languages. Oceanic Linguistics, 12, 69–102. [See pages 89, 90, 98.]Google Scholar
Lynch, John. 1978. A Grammar of Lenakel. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. [See pages 98, 162.]Google Scholar
Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [See pages 73, 83, 84, 86, 117.]Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [See page 165.]Google Scholar
MacFarlane, John. 2014. Assessment Sensitivity: Relative Truth and Its Applications. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [See pages 3, 8, 207.]Google Scholar
MacKay, Carolyn J. 1999. A Grammar of Misantla Totonac. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. [See page 160.]Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and Licensing. Pages 234–253 of: Westphal, German, Ao, Benjamin, and Chae, Hee-Rahk (eds), Proceedings of the 8th Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL 8). Ithaca: CLC Publications. [See page 96.]Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications and Asymmetries in Double Object Constructions. Pages 113–150 of: Mchombo, Sam A. (ed), Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar 1. Stanford: CSLI Publications. [See page 160.]Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No Escape from Syntax: Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon. Pages 201–225 of: Dimitriadis, Alexis, Siegel, Laura, Surek-Clark, Clarissa, and Williams, Alexander (eds), University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 4.2. University of Pennsylvania. [See pages 98, 113, 165.]Google Scholar
Martí, Luisa. 2002. Contextual Variables. Ph.D. thesis, University of Connecticut. [See page 85.]Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1972. Lahu Nominalization, Relativization, and Genitivization. Pages 237–258 of: Kimball, John P. (ed), Syntax and Semantics 1. New York: Academic Press. [See page 92.]Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 1998. Determiner Systems and Quantificational Strategies: Evidence from Salish. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. [See pages 27, 44, 63, 80, 81, 82, 84, 86, 124, 128, 129.]Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 1999. On the Interpretation of Wide-Scope Indefinites. Natural Language Semantics, 7, 79–134. [See pages 82, 86, 87.]Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 2001. Quantification and the Nature of Crosslinguistic Variation. Natural Language Semantics, 9, 145–189. [See pages 81, 87, 114.]Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa (ed). 2008. Quantification: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Bingley: Emerald. [See pages 81, 241.]Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 2009. An Unfamiliar Proportional Quantifier. Pages 23–52 of: Giannakidou and Rathert (2009). [See page 124.]Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 2013. Strategies of Quantification in St’át’imcets and the Rest of the World. Pages 15–38 of: Gil et al. (2013). [See pages 81, 82, 84, 86, 87.]Google Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. 2006. Why Rose Is the Rose: On the Use of Definite Articles in Proper Names. Pages 285–308 of: Bonami, Olivier, and Cabredo Hofherr, Patricia (eds), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 6. CSSP. [See page 43.]Google Scholar
Mavrogiorgos, Marios. 2010. Clitics in Greek: A Minimalist Account of Proclisis and Enclisis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [See pages 38, 102.]Google Scholar
May, Robert. 1985. Logical Form. Cambridge: MIT Press. [See pages 25, 31, 99, 105, 107, 213.]Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 2002. Resumption, Successive Cyclicity, and the Locality of Operations. Pages 184–226 of: Epstein and Seely (2002). [See page 58.]Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 2014. Irish Existentials in Context. Syntax, 17(4), 343–384. [See pages 126, 127, 162, 163, 164, 166.]Google Scholar
McGregor, William B. (ed). 2009. The Expression of Possession. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [See pages 251, 255.]Google Scholar
McNally, Louise. 1997. An Interpretation for the English Existential Construction. New York: Garland. [See pages 111, 127, 164, 166.]Google Scholar
McNally, Louise. 2011. Existential Sentences. Pages 1829–1848 of: von Heusinger et al. (2011). [See page 166.]Google Scholar
McNally, Louise. 2016. Existential Sentences Crosslinguistically: Variations in Form and Meaning. Annual Review of Linguistics, 2, 211–231. [See pages 127, 162.]Google Scholar
McNeill, David. 1970. The Acquisition of Language. New York: Harper & Row. [See page 73.]Google Scholar
Megerdoomian, Karine. 2008. Parallel Nominal and Verbal Projections. Pages 73–104 of: Freidin et al. (2008). [See pages 63, 81, 96, 112, 114, 156.]Google Scholar
Megerdoomian, Karine. 2009. Beyond Words and Phrases: A Unified Theory of Predicate Composition. Berlin: VDM Verlag. [See page 96.]Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2013. Voice and Ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry, 44, 77–108. [See pages 114, 159.]Google Scholar
Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential Sentences in English. Ph.D. thesis, MIT. [See pages 111, 127, 166.]Google Scholar
Milsark, Gary. 1977. Toward an Explanation of Certain Peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis, 3, 1–29. Reprinted in pages 40–65 of: Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier (ed), Semantics, Vol. III: Noun Phrase Classes. London: Routledge. [See pages 115, 123, 166.]Google Scholar
Montgomery, Michael B., and Hall, Joseph S. 2004. Dictionary of Smoky Mountain English. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. [See page 126.]Google Scholar
Moro, Andrea. 1997. The Raising of Predicates: Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [See page 164.]Google Scholar
Moro, Andrea. 2017. Copular Sentences. Pages 1–23 of: Everaert and van Riemsdijk (2017). [See page 115.]Google Scholar
Mortensen, David. 2003. Two Kinds of Variable Elements in Hmong Anaphora. MS, University of California–Berkeley. [See pages 51, 71, 100, 101.]Google Scholar
Mosel, Ulrike. 1984. Tolai Syntax and Its Historical Development. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. [See pages 97, 98, 163, 167.]Google Scholar
Moulton, Keir. 2015. CPs: Copies and Compositionality. Linguistic Inquiry, 46, 305–342. [See pages 27, 28, 59, 61, 157, 158.]Google Scholar
Musan, Renate. 1995. On the Temporal Interpretation of Noun Phrases. Ph.D. thesis, MIT. [See pages 129, 130.]Google Scholar
Myler, Neil. 2016. Building and Interpreting Possession Sentences. Cambridge: MIT Press. [See pages 162, 167.]Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1988. On Alienable and Inalienable Possession. Pages 557–609 of: Shipley, William (ed), In Honor of Mary Haas. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [See pages 89, 97, 98.]Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [See page 97.]Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina, and Spencer, Andrew. 2013. Possession and Modification: A Perspective from Canonical Typology. Pages 207–239 of: Brown, Dunstan, Chumakina, Marina, and Corbett, Greville G. (eds), Canonical Morphology and Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [See page 92.]Google Scholar
Ninan, Dilip. 2012. Counterfactual Attitudes and Multi-Centered Worlds. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5, 1–57. [See pages 5, 11, 30, 43.]Google Scholar
Nissenbaum, Jonathan W. 2000. Investigations of Covert Phrase Movement. Ph.D. thesis, MIT. [See pages 31, 133.]Google Scholar
Noguchi, Tohru. 1997. Two Types of Pronouns and Variable Binding. Language, 73, 770–797. [See pages 69, 74.]Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge: MIT Press. [See pages 25, 71, 93, 100, 142, 219.]Google Scholar
Nyvad, Anne Mette, Christensen, Ken Ramshøj, and Vikner, Sten. 2017. CP-Recursion in Danish: A cP/CP-Analysis. The Linguistic Review, 34, 449–477. [See page 184.]Google Scholar
Ojeda, Almerindo. 1993. Linguistic Individuals. Stanford: CSLI Publications. [See page 144.]Google Scholar
Onishi, Masayuki. 2000. Transitivity and Valency-Changing Derivations in Motuna. Pages 115–144 of: Dixon, R. M. W., and Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds), Changing Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [See page 162.]Google Scholar
Panagiotidis, Phoevos. 2002. Pronouns, Clitics and Empty Nouns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [See page 69.]Google Scholar
Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press. [See page 156.]Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1973. Some Structural Analogies between Tenses and Pronouns in English. Pages 50–58 of: Partee (2004). [See page 4.]Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1979. Semantics–Mathematics or Psychology? Pages 1–14 of: Bäuerle, Rainer, Egli, Urs, and von Stechow, Arnim (eds), Semantics from Different Points of View. Berlin: Springer. [See page 49.]Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1983. Genitives: A Case Study. Pages 182–189 of: Partee (2004). [See pages 88, 92, 94.]Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1984. Nominal and Temporal Anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 7(3), 243–286. [See page 63.]Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1986a. Ambiguous Pseudoclefts with Unambiguous Be. Pages 190–202 of: Partee (2004). [See pages 115, 118.]Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1986b. Noun Phrase Interpretation and Type-Shifting Principles. Pages 203–230 of: Partee (2004). [See pages 117, 118, 128.]Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1989a. Binding Implicit Variables in Quantified Contexts. Pages 259–271 of: Partee (2004). [See page 69.]Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1989b. Many Quantifiers. Pages 241–258 of: Partee (2004). [See pages 117, 128.]Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1995. Quantificational Structures and Compositionality. Pages 541–602 of: Bach et al. (1995). [See pages 122, 173.]Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 2004. Compositionality in Formal Semantics: Selected Papers by Barbara H. Partee. Malden: Blackwell. [See page 255.]Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H., and Borschev, Vladimir. 2003. Genitives, Relational Nouns, and Argument-Modifier Ambiguity. Pages 67–112 of: Lang, Ewald, Maienborn, Claudia, and Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine (eds), Modifying Adjuncts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [See pages 88, 90, 93, 94, 97, 98.]Google Scholar
Patel-Grosz, Pritty, and Grosz, Patrick. 2010. On the Typology of Donkeys: Two Types of Anaphora Resolution. Pages 339–355 of: Prinzhorn, Martin, Schmitt, Viola, and Zobel, Sarah (eds), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 14. Vienna: University of Vienna. [See page 71.]Google Scholar
Patel-Grosz, Pritty, and Grosz, Patrick G. 2017. Revisiting Pronominal Typology. Linguistic Inquiry, 48(2), 259–297. [See pages 69, 72, 74, 86, 217.]Google Scholar
Paul, Ileana, and Travis, Lisa. 2006. Ergativity in Austronesian Languages: What It Can Do, What It Can’t, but Not Why. Pages 315–335 of: Johns, Alana, Massam, Diane, and Ndayiragije, Juvenal (eds), Ergativity: Emerging Issues. Dordrecht: Springer. [See page 82.]Google Scholar
Paul, Ileana, Cortes, Key, and Milambiling, Lareina. 2015. Definiteness without D: The Case of Ang and Ng in Tagalog. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 60(3), 361–390. [See pages 83, 84, 114.]Google Scholar
Payne, Doris L. 2009. Is Possession Mere Location? Contrary Evidence from Maa. Pages 107–142 of: McGregor (2009). [See pages 98, 165.]Google Scholar
Percus, Orin. 2000. Constraints on Some Other Variables in Syntax. Natural Language Semantics, 8, 173–229. [See pages 4, 22, 24.]Google Scholar
Percus, Orin, and Sauerland, Uli. 2003. On the LFs of Attitude Reports. Pages 228–242 of: Weisgerber, Matthias (ed), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 7. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz. [See pages 4, 43.]Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-In-Situ: Movement and Unselective Binding. Pages 98–129 of: Reuland and ter Meulen (1987). [See pages 85, 215.]Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge: MIT Press. [See page 160.]Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal Movement and Its Kin. Cambridge: MIT Press. [See pages 211, 215, 216.]Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 2017. Complementizer-Trace Effects. Pages 1–34 of: Everaert and van Riemsdijk (2017). [See page 28.]Google Scholar
Peters, Stanley, and Westerståhl, Dag. 2013. The Semantics of Possessives. Language, 89(4), 713–759. [See page 96.]Google Scholar
Peterson, Thomas H. 1974. On Definite Restrictive Relatives in Mooré. Journal of West African Linguistics, 9(2), 71–78. [See page 65.]Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1969. On the So-Called “Pronouns” in English. Pages 201–224 of: Reibel, David A., and Schane, Sanford A. (eds), Modern Studies in English: Readings in Transformational Grammar. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. [See pages 69, 72, 73, 217.]Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher, Asudeh, Ash, Cable, Seth, Hara, Yurie, McCready, E., Alonso-Ovalle, Luis, Bhatt, Rajesh, Davis, Christopher, Kratzer, Angelika, Roeper, Tom, and Walkow, Martin. 2009. Expressives and Identity Conditions. Linguistic Inquiry, 40(2), 356–366. [See page 196.]Google Scholar
von Prince, Kilu. 2016. Alienability as Control: The Case of Daakaka. Lingua, 182, 69–87. [See pages 90, 97.]Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2000. What Applicative Heads Apply To. Pages 197–210 of: Kaiser, Elsi, Fox, Michelle Minnick, and Williams, Alexander (eds), University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 7.1. University of Pennsylvania. [See page 160.]Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing Arguments. Cambridge: MIT Press. [See pages 87, 113, 114, 157, 160.]Google Scholar
Rabern, Brian. 2012a. Against the Identification of Assertoric Content with Compositional Value. Synthese, 189(1), 75–96. [See page 207.]Google Scholar
Rabern, Brian. 2012b. Monsters in Kaplan’s Logic of Demonstratives. Philosophical Studies, 1–12. [See page 4.]Google Scholar
Rackowski, Andrea Stokes. 2002. The Structure of Tagalog: Specificity, Voice, and the Distribution of Arguments. Ph.D. thesis, MIT. [See pages 87, 113, 114.]Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 1997. Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English: A Minimalist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [See pages 69, 73.]Google Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. 2017. The Event Domain. Pages 233–254 of: D’Alessandro et al. (2017). [See pages 114, 143.]Google Scholar
Rappaport, Gilbert C. 1986. On Anaphor Binding in Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 4, 97–120. [See page 42.]Google Scholar
Rawlins, Kyle. 2008. (Un)conditionals: An Investigation in the Syntax and Semantics of Conditional Structures. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz. [See page 174.]Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics. Philosophica, 27, 53–94. [See pages 180, 185.]Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [See page 103.]Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1987. Specifier and Operator Binding. Pages 130–167 of: Reuland and ter Meulen (1987). [See pages 103, 109.]Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1997. Quantifier Scope: How Labor Is Divided between QR and Choice Functions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 335–397. [See page 69.]Google Scholar
Reuland, Eric J., and ter Meulen, Alice G. B. (eds). 1987. The Representation of (In)definiteness. Cambridge: MIT Press. [See pages 237, 248, 256, 257, 261.]Google Scholar
Richards, Marc D. 2007. On Feature Inheritance: An Argument from the Phase Impenetrability Condition. Linguistic Inquiry, 38, 563–572. [See page 132.]Google Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan. 2002. The Noun Phrase. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [See pages 63, 113, 156.]Google Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan. 2008. Synchronic and Diachronic Evidence for Parallels between Noun Phrases and Sentences. Pages 13–42 of: Josephson, Folke, and Söhrman, Ingmar (eds), Interdependence of Diachronic and Synchronic Analyses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [See page 63.]Google Scholar
van Rijn, Marlou. 2017. The Expression of Modifiers and Arguments in the Noun Phrase and Beyond: A Typological Study. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam. [See pages 88, 89, 92, 93, 97.]Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth. 1991. Two Functional Categories in Noun Phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. Pages 37–62 of: Rothstein, Susan (ed), Syntax and Semantics 25, Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing. San Diego: Academic Press. [See page 112.]Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth, and Wiltschko, Martina. 2014. The Composition of INFL: An Exploration of Tense, Tenseless Languages, and Tenseless Constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 32, 1331–1386. [See page 26.]Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. Pages 281–337 of: Haegeman, Liliane (ed), Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer. [See page 33.]Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2001. Extraction from Weak Islands, Reconstruction, and Agreement. Pages 155–176 of: Chierchia, Gennaro (ed), Semantic Interfaces: Reference, Anaphora, Aspect. Stanford: CSLI Publications. [See page 216.]Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2001. Head Movement. Pages 113–147 of: Baltin and Collins (2001). [See page 26.]Google Scholar
Rouveret, Alain (ed). 2011. Resumptive Pronouns at the Interfaces. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [See pages 102, 234, 240.]Google Scholar
Rullmann, Hotze. 1995. Maximality in the Semantics of Wh-Constructions. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst. [See pages 64, 211, 215.]Google Scholar
Rullmann, Hotze, and Beck, Sigrid. 1998 . Presupposition Projection and the Interpretation of Which-Questions. Pages 215–232 of: Strolovitch, Devon, and Lawson, Aaron (eds), Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 8. Ithaca: CLC Publications. [See pages 86, 211, 215.]Google Scholar
Sabbagh, Joseph. 2009. Existential Sentences in Tagalog. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 27, 675–719. [See pages 88, 125, 127, 163, 164, 166.]Google Scholar
Sabbagh, Joseph. 2016. Specificity and Objecthood in Tagalog. Journal of Linguistics, 52, 639–688. [See pages 84, 89.]Google Scholar
Safir, Ken. 1985. Syntactic Chains. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [See page 126.]Google Scholar
Safir, Ken. 1999. Vehicle Change and Reconstruction in A-Bar Chains. Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 587–620. [See pages 62, 110.]Google Scholar
Safir, Ken. 2004. The Syntax of (In)dependence. Cambridge: MIT Press. [See pages 104, 109.]Google Scholar
Santelmann, Lynn. 1993. The Distribution of Double Determiners in Swedish: Den Support in D. Studia Linguistica, 47, 154–176. [See pages 81, 86.]Google Scholar
Santorio, Paolo. 2010. Modals Are Monsters: On Indexical Shift in English. Pages 289–308 of: Li, Nan, and Lutz, David (eds), Proceedings of SALT 20. Ithaca: CLC Publications. [See pages 5, 11, 30, 43.]Google Scholar
Santorio, Paolo. 2012. Reference and Monstrosity. Philosophical Review, 121(3), 359–406. [See pages 5, 10, 11, 30, 172, 181, 183, 221.]Google Scholar
Santorio, Paolo. 2013. Descriptions as Variables. Philosophical Studies, 164, 41–59. [See page 48.]Google Scholar
Satık, Deniz. 2017. The Little nP Hypothesis. Pages 1–15 of: Monti, Andrew Alexander (ed), Proceedings of the 2017 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistics Association. CLA. [See page 87.]Google Scholar
Sato, Hiroko. 2009. Possessive Nominalization in Kove. Oceanic Linguistics, 48(2), 346–363. [See pages 89, 90, 97.]Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 1998. The Meaning of Chains. Ph.D. thesis, MIT. [See pages 25, 58, 78, 140.]Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 2003. Unpronounced Heads in Relative Clauses. Pages 205–226 of: Schwabe, Kerstin, and Winkler, Susanne (eds), The Interfaces: Deriving and Interpreting Omitted Structures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [See pages 58, 78, 140.]Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 2004. The Interpretation of Traces. Natural Language Semantics, 12, 63–127. [See pages 140, 141.]Google Scholar
Saul, Jennifer M. 1998. The Pragmatics of Attitude Ascription. Philosophical Studies, 92(3), 363–389. [See page 45.]Google Scholar
Schein, Barry. 2003. Adverbial, Descriptive Reciprocals. Philosophical Perspectives, 17(1), 333–367. [See pages 174, 176.]Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2003. A Plea for Monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 29–120. [See pages 4, 11, 17, 30.]Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2004. Conditionals as Definite Descriptions (A Referential Analysis). Research on Language and Computation, 2, 417–462. [See pages 173, 174, 185, 199.]Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2005. Non-Redundancy: Towards a Semantic Reinterpretation of Binding Theory. Natural Language Semantics, 13, 1–92. [See page 109.]Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2006. Ontological Symmetry in Language: A Brief Manifesto. Mind and Language, 21(4), 504–539. [See page 4.]Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2010. Local Contexts and Local Meanings. Philosophical Studies, 151, 115–142. [See page 5.]Google Scholar
Schwarz, Florian. 2009. Two Types of Definites in Natural Language. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. [See pages 72, 84, 86.]Google Scholar
Seiler, Hansjakob. 1983a. Possession as an Operational Dimension of Language. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. [See pages 89, 97, 98.]Google Scholar
Seiler, Hansjakob. 1983b. Possessivity, Subject and Object. Studies in Language, 7(1), 89–117. [See page 97.]Google Scholar
Sells, Peter. 1987. Binding Resumptive Pronouns. Linguistics and Philosophy, 10, 261–298. [See page 148.]Google Scholar
Sharvit, Yael. 1999. Resumptive Pronouns in Relative Clauses. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17, 587–612. [See page 148.]Google Scholar
Showalter, Catherine. 1986. Pronouns in Lyele. Pages 205–216 of: Wiesemann, Ursula (ed), Pronominal Systems. Tübingen: Günter Narr. [See page 210.]Google Scholar
Silk, Alex. 2013. Truth-Conditions and the Meanings of Ethical Terms. Pages 195–222 of: Shafer-Landau, Russ (ed), Oxford Studies in Metaethics, vol. 8. New York: Oxford University Press. [See page 2.]Google Scholar
Silk, Alex. 2014. Evidence Sensitivity in Weak Necessity Deontic Modals. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 43(4), 691–723. [See pages 190, 192.]Google Scholar
Silk, Alex. 2016a. Discourse Contextualism: A Framework for Contextualist Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [See pages 2, 8, 42, 136.]Google Scholar
Silk, Alex. 2016b. Update Semantics for Weak Necessity Modals. Pages 237–255 of: Deontic Logic and Normative Systems (DEON 2016). Milton Keynes: College Publications. [See page 190.]Google Scholar
Silk, Alex. 2017. How to Embed an Epistemic Modal: Attitude Problems and Other Defects of Character. Philosophical Studies, 174(7), 1773–1799. [See pages 2, 8, 42, 136.]Google Scholar
Silk, Alex. 2018. Commitment and States of Mind with Mood and Modality. Natural Language Semantics, 26(2), 125–166. [See pages 11, 30.]Google Scholar
Siloni, Tal. 1997. Noun Phrases and Nominalizations: The Syntax of DPs. Dordrecht: Kluwer. [See pages 63, 93.]Google Scholar
Soames, Scott. 2002. The Unfinished Semantic Agenda of Naming and Necessity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [See page 43.]Google Scholar
Song, Jae Jung. 1997. The History of Micronesian Possessive Classifiers and Benefactive Marking in Oceanic Languages. Oceanic Linguistics, 36, 29–64. [See page 89.]Google Scholar
Speas, Margaret, and Tenny, Carol. 2003. Configurational Properties of Point of View Roles. Pages 315–344 of: Di Scuillo, Anna Maria (ed), Asymmetry in Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [See page 207.]Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 2006. Reconstruction, Binding, and Scope. Pages 35–93 of: Everaert and van Riemsdijk (2006). [See pages 62, 201, 214.]Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 2017. Relative Clauses: Promotion Only, in Steps. MS, UCLA. [See pages 58, 78, 155.]Google Scholar
Srivastav, Veneeta. 1991. The Syntax and Semantics of Correlatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 9, 637–686. [See pages 72, 186, 195, 198, 200, 223.]Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1988. Belief Attribution and Context. Pages 150–166 of: Stalnaker (1999). [See pages 5, 35, 43, 49.]Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1999. Context and Content: Essays on Intentionality in Speech and Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [See page 259.]Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 2014. Context. New York: Oxford University Press. [See pages 5, 35.]Google Scholar
Stanley, Jason. 2002. Nominal Restriction. Pages 365–388 of: Preyer, Gerhard, and Peter, Georg (eds), Logical Form and Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [See pages 10, 85.]Google Scholar
Stanley, Jason, and Szabó, Zoltán Gendler. 2000. On Quantifier Domain Restriction. Mind and Language, 15, 219–261. [See pages 10, 85.]Google Scholar
Starr, William. 2010. Conditionals, Meaning, and Mood. Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers University. [See page 221.]Google Scholar
Stebbins, Tonya N. 2009. The Semantics of Clause Linking in Mali. Pages 356–379 of: Dixon and Aikhenvald (2009). [See page 175.]Google Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim. 2003. Feature Deletion under Semantic Binding: Tense, Person, and Mood under Verbal Quantifiers. Pages 397–403 of: Kadowaki, Makoto, and Kawahara, Shigeto (eds), Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society 33. Amherst: GLSA. [See page 69.]Google Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim. 2008. Tense, Modals, and Attitudes as Verbal Quantifiers. Paper presented at ESSLLI 2008. [See page 27.]Google Scholar
Stephenson, Tamina. 2007. Towards a Theory of Subjective Meaning. Ph.D. thesis, MIT. [See page 8.]Google Scholar
Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 1998. The Semantics of Reconstruction and Connectivity. Pages 1–58 of: Arbeitspapier des SFB 340 97. Universität Tübingen. [See pages 4, 18, 40, 214.]Google Scholar
Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 2001. Partial Movement Constructions, Pied Piping, and Higher Order Choice Functions. Pages 473–486 of: Féry, Caroline, and Sternefeld, Wolfgang (eds), Audiatur Vox Sapientiae: A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. [See page 64.]Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P., Schachter, Paul, and Partee, Barbara Hall. 1973. The Major Syntactic Structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. [See page 116.]Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas, Kettler, Sonja, Stroh, Cornelia, and Urdze, Aina (eds). 2008. Split Possession: An Areal-Linguistic Study of the Alienability Correlation and Related Phenomena in the Languages of Europe. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [See page 89.]Google Scholar
Stone, Matthew. 1997. The Anaphoric Parallel between Modality and Tense. IRCS TR 97-06, University of Pennsylvania. [See page 63.]Google Scholar
Storto, Gianluca. 2003. Possessives in Context: Issues in the Semantics of Possessive Constructions. Ph.D. thesis, UCLA. [See pages 93, 98.]Google Scholar
Sudo, Yasutada. 2012. On the Semantics of Phi Features on Pronouns. Ph.D. thesis, MIT. [See page 69.]Google Scholar
Sundaresan, Sandhya, and McFadden, Thomas. 2017. The Articulated v Layer: Evidence from Tamil. Pages 153–178 of: D’Alessandro et al. (2017). [See page 159.]Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2004. On the Edge. Pages 259–288 of: Adger et al. (2004). [See pages 63, 132.]Google Scholar
Swanson, Eric. 2011. Propositional Attitudes. Pages 1538–1560 of: von Heusinger et al. (2011). [See pages 5, 43.]Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1983. The Possessor that Ran Away from Home. The Linguistic Review, 3, 89–102. [See pages 93, 162.]Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1994. The Noun Phrase. Pages 179–274 of: Kiefer, Ferenc, and Kiss, Katalin É. (eds), Syntax and Semantics 27: The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian. New York: Academic Press. [See pages 63, 84, 162.]Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 2011. Certain Verbs Are Syntactically Explicit Quantifiers. Pages 1–26 of: Partee, Barbara H., Glanzberg, Michael, and Šilters, Jurǵis (eds), The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, vol. 6: Formal Semantics and Pragmatics: Discourse, Context and Models. Manhattan: New Prairie Press. [See page 27.]Google Scholar
Takahashi, Shoichi. 2010. Traces or Copies, or Both. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(11), 1091–1115. [See page 25.]Google Scholar
Tanaka, Misako. 2015. Scoping Out of Adjuncts: Evidence for the Parallelism between QR and Wh-Movement. Ph.D. thesis, University College London. [See pages 31, 133.]Google Scholar
Tănase-Dogaru, Mihaela. 2007. The Category of Number: Its Relevance for the Syntax and the Semantic Typology of the Nominal Group. Ph.D. thesis, University of Bucharest. [See page 113.]Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 1989. Possessive Genitives in English. Linguistics, 27, 663–686. [See pages 93, 98.]Google Scholar
Tellier, Christine. 1991. Licensing Theory and French Parasitic Gaps. Dordrecht: Kluwer. [See pages 63, 93, 167.]Google Scholar
Thurgood, Graham, and LaPolla, Randy J. (eds). 2017. The Sino-Tibetan Languages, 2 ed. London: Routledge. [See pages 73, 81, 92, 209, 217.]Google Scholar
Türker, Lola. 2019. Noun Phrases in Article-less Languages: Uzbek and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [See pages 84, 114, 124.]Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1998. A Note on Rigidity. Pages 361–382 of: Uriagereka (2002a). [See pages 43, 80.]Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 2002a. Derivations: Exploring the Dynamics of Syntax. London: Routledge. [See page 261.]Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 2002b. From Being to Having: Questions about Ontology from a Kayne/Szabolcsi Syntax. Pages 192–211 of: Uriagereka (2002a). [See page 165.]Google Scholar
Vikner, Carl, and Jensen, Per Anker. 2002. A Semantic Analysis of the English Genitive: Interaction of Lexical and Formal Semantics. Studia Linguistica, 56, 191–226. [See page 94.]Google Scholar
Villalba, Xavier. 2013. Eventive Existentials in Catalan and the Topic-Focus Articulation. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 25, 147–173. [See page 125.]Google Scholar
de Vries, Mark. 2002. The Syntax of Relativization. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam. [See pages 58, 76, 80, 142, 143, 155, 210, 217.]Google Scholar
Weatherson, Brian. 2008. Attitudes and Relativism. Philosophical Perspectives, 22, 527–544. [See page 2.]Google Scholar
Welmers, Wm. E. 1973. African Language Structures. Berkeley: University of California Press. [See page 173.]Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1984. There-Insertion. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 131–153. [See pages 125, 164, 166.]Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1997. Blocking and Anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 577–628. [See page 84.]Google Scholar
Williamson, Janis S. 1979. Patient Marking in Lakhota and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Pages 353–365 of: Clyne, Paul R., Hanks, William F., and Hofbauer, Carol L. (eds), Papers from the Fifteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS). Chicago: CLS, University of Chicago. [See page 167.]Google Scholar
Williamson, Janis S. 1987. An Indefiniteness Restriction for Relative Clauses in Lakhota. Pages 168–190 of: Reuland and ter Meulen (1987). [See pages 65, 66, 76, 142.]Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 1998. On the Syntax and Semantics of (Relative) Pronouns and Determiners. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 2, 143–181. [See pages 69, 72, 73.]Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 2002. The Syntax of Pronouns: Evidence from Halkomelem Salish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 20(1), 157–195. [See page 73.]Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 2014. The Universal Structure of Categories: Towards a Formal Typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [See pages 26, 63.]Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 2016. Fake Form and What It Tells Us about the Relation between Form and Interpretation. Pages 13–52 of: Grosz and Patel-Grosz (2016). [See pages 3, 69.]Google Scholar
Winter, Yoad. 1997. Choice Functions and the Scopal Semantics of Indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 399–467. [See page 44.]Google Scholar
Wood, Jim, and Marantz, Alec. 2017. The Interpretation of External Arguments. Pages 255–278 of: D’Alessandro et al. (2017). [See pages 87, 114, 155, 157, 164, 166.]Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi, and Shimamura, Koji. 2017. The Features of the Voice Domain: Actives, Passives, and Restructuring. Pages 179–204 of: D’Alessandro et al. (2017). [See page 159.]Google Scholar
Yalcin, Seth. 2011. Nonfactualism about Epistemic Modality. Pages 295–332 of: Egan, Andy, and Weatherson, Brian (eds), Epistemic Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [See page 2.]Google Scholar
Zamparelli, Roberto. 2000. Layers in the Determiner Phrase. New York: Garland Publishing. [See pages 81, 86, 96, 111, 114, 117.]Google Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike, and Perniss, Pamela (eds). 2008. Possessive and Existential Constructions in Sign Languages. Nijmegan: Ishara Press. [See pages 162, 165.]Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 2008. From Intensive to Reflexive: The Prosodic Factor. Pages 591–632 of: König, Ekkehard, and Gast, Volker (eds), Reciprocals and Reflexives: Theoretical and Typological Explorations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [See pages 101, 102.]Google Scholar
Zucchi, Allesandro. 1995. The Ingredients of Definiteness and the Definiteness Effect. Natural Language Semantics, 3, 33–78. [See page 125.]Google Scholar