Skip to main content Accessibility help

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

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T10:05:39.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2021

Alex Silk
Alex Silk
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Semantics with Assignment Variables , pp. 233 - 262
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

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

References

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, Greg N. 1977. Amount Relatives. Language, 58, 520–542. [See pages 78, 140.]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. 1993. Topics in Ewe Syntax. Ph.D. thesis, MIT. [See page 72.]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
Cresswell, M.J. 1990. Entities and Indices. Dordrecht: Kluwer. [See page 4.]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
Dayal, Veneeta. 2016. Questions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [See page 211.]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
Fortescue, Michael. 1984. West Greenlandic. London: Croom Helm. [See page 162.]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
Gallego, Ángel J. 2010. Phase Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [See page 132.]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. 1978. Conditionals Are Topics. Language, 54, 565–589. [See page 186.]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. 1971. Formal Properties of ‘Now’. Theoria, 37, 227–274. [See page 4.]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
Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in Language. London: Routledge. [See page 158.]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
Kotek, Hadas. 2014. Composing Questions. Ph.D. thesis, MIT. [See page 204.]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
Lasnik, Howard. 1989. Essays on Anaphora. Boston: Kluwer. [See pages 51, 101.]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. 1977. The Grammar of Quantification. Ph.D. thesis, MIT. [See page 109.]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
Merlan, Francesca. 1982. Mangarayi. Amsterdam: North-Holland. [See page 89.]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
Nedjalkov, Igor. 1997. Evenki. London: Routledge. [See page 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
Noonan, Michael. 1992. A Grammar of Lango. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [See page 154.]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. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge: MIT Press. [See page 131.]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
Salmon, Nathan. 1986. Frege’s Puzzle. Cambridge: MIT Press. [See page 43.]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. 1970. Pragmatics. Pages 31–46 of: Stalnaker (1999). [See page 4.]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. 2007. Epistemic Modals. Mind, 116, 983–1026. [See pages 2, 8.]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
Ziff, Paul. 1960. Semantic Analysis. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. [See page 79.]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

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

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

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • Alex Silk, University of Birmingham
  • Book: Semantics with Assignment Variables
  • Online publication: 09 July 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108870078.015
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

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

  • Bibliography
  • Alex Silk, University of Birmingham
  • Book: Semantics with Assignment Variables
  • Online publication: 09 July 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108870078.015
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

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

  • Bibliography
  • Alex Silk, University of Birmingham
  • Book: Semantics with Assignment Variables
  • Online publication: 09 July 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108870078.015
Available formats
×