Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-lrf7s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-31T22:31:15.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2010

Theresa Biberauer
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Anders Holmberg
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Ian Roberts
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Michelle Sheehan
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Parametric Variation
Null Subjects in Minimalist Theory
, pp. 328 - 356
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

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

Abels, K. 2008. Towards a restrictive theory of (remnant) movement. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 7: 53–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abels, K. and Neeleman, A.. 2006. Universal 20 without the LCA. Unpublished ms: UCL. (Available on-line at: http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/klaus/papers/KlausandAdGLOWv2.pdf)Google Scholar
Abraham, W. 1993. Null subjects in the history of German: from IP to CP. Lingua 89: 117–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, J. 2003. Bilingualism and the Latin language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, M. 1987a. From Old French to theory of pro-drop. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5: 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, M. 1987b. Old French, null subjects and Verb-Second phenomena. PhD dissertation: UCLA.Google Scholar
Adger, D. 2006a. Combinatorial variation. Journal of Linguistics 42: 503–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adger, D. 2006b. Post syntactic movement and the Old Irish Verb. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24: 605–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adger, D. 2007. Stress and phasal syntax, Linguistic Analysis 33: 238–66.Google Scholar
Adragão, M. and Costa, J.. 2004. On the status of preverbal subjects in null subject languages: evidence from acquisition. In Kampen, J. and Baauw, S. (eds) Proceedings of GALA 2003. Utrecht: LOT Occasional Series, 69–80.Google Scholar
Akmajian, A., Steele, S. and Wasow, T. 1979. The category AUX in Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 10:1–64.Google Scholar
Aldridge, E. 2004. Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. PhD dissertation: Cornell.Google Scholar
Aldridge, E. 2006. The heterogeneity of VOS and extraction in Austronesian languages. Unpublished ms: Northwestern University. (Available on-line at: http://faculty.washington.edu/eca1/VOS.pdf)Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. 1997. Adverb placement: a case study in antisymmetric syntax. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A. and Anagnostopoulou, E.. 1995. SVO and EPP in null subject languages and Germanic. FAS Papers in Linguistics 4:1–21.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. and Anagnostopoulou, E. 1998. Parametrizing AGR: word order, V-movement and EPP checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 491–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A, and Anagnostopoulou, E. 2001. The subject-in-situ generalization and the role of case in driving computations, Linguistic Inquiry 32: 193–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A. and Anagnostopoulou, E. 2007. The subject-in-situ generalization revisited. In Sauerland, U. and Gärtner, H-M. (eds) Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky's minimalism and the view from syntax and semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 31–60.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. and Müller, G. 2005. Class features as probes. Ms, UniversitätStuttgart and Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar
Allen, C. 1995. Case marking and reanalysis. Grammatical relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ambar, M. 1992. Para uma sintaxe da inversão sujeito verbo em português. Lisbon: Edicoes Colibri.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. 1982. The analysis of French schwa, or how to get something for nothing. Language 58: 534–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M. 1990. Accessing noun phrase antecedents. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Armstrong, L. 1962. The phonetics of French. A practical handbook. London: Bells & Son.Google Scholar
Baker, C. 1970. Notes on the description of English questions: the role of an abstract question morpheme. Foundations of Language 6: 197–219.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation: a theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 2000. The natures of nonconfigurationality. In Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds) The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 407–438.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 2001. The atoms of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. 2003a. Lexical categories. Verbs, nouns and adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. 2003b. Building and merging, not checking: the non-existence of (Aux)-S-V-O languages. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 321–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. 2008a. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. 2008b. The macroparameter in a microparametric world. In Biberauer, T. (ed.) The limits of syntactic variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 351–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M., Johnson, K. and Roberts, I. 1989. Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 219–51.Google Scholar
Barber, C. 1976. Early Modern English. London: Deutsch.Google Scholar
Barbiers, S. 2005. Word order variation in three-verb clusters and the division of labour between genarative linguistics and sociolinguistics. In Cornips, L. and Corrigan, K. (eds) Syntax and variation. Reconciling the biological and the social. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 233–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbosa, P. 1995. Null subjects. PhD dissertation: MIT.Google Scholar
Barbosa, P. 2009. Two kinds of subject pro. Studia Linguistica 63: 2–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basilico, D. 1997. The topic is ‘there’. Studia Linguistica 51: 278–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battistella, E. and Lobeck, A.. 1988. An ECP account of verb second in Old English. Proceedings of the Conference on the Theory and Practice of Historical Linguistics.
Bayer, J. 1984. COMP in Bavarian syntax. The Linguistic Review 3: 209–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belletti, A. 1988. The case of unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 1–34.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. 2001. Inversion as focalisation. In Hulk, A. and Pollock, J-Y. (eds) Subject inversion in Romance and the theory of Universal Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press, 60–91.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. 2004. Aspects of the low IP area. In Rizzi, L. (ed.) The structure of CP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures. New York: Oxford University Press, 16–51.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. 2005. Extended doubling and the VP periphery. Probus 17: 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belletti, A., , E.Bennati, and Sorace, A.. In press. Theoretical and developmental issues in the syntax of subjects: Evidence from near-native Italian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory.
Belletti, A. and Shlonsky, U.. 1995. The order of verbal complements in Italian and in Hebrew, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 489–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benincà, P. 1988. Soggetto Posverbale. In Renzi, L. (ed.) Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione. Bologna: Il Mulino, 122–26.Google Scholar
Benincà, P. and Poletto, C.. 2005. On some descriptive generalizations in Romance. In Cinque, G. and Kayne, R. (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 221–58.Google Scholar
Bennis, H. 1986. Gaps and dummies. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Bentzen, K. 2007. Order and structure in embedded clauses in Northern Norwegian. PhD dissertation: Tromsø.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. 1985. The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Besten, H. 1983. On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. In Abraham, W. (ed.) On the formal syntax of the Westgermania. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 47–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, R. and Pancheva, R.. 2004. Late merger of degree clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. 2003. Verb second (V2) in Afrikaans: a minimalist investigation of word-order variation. PhD dissertation: University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. 2004. Reconsidering Spec-TP in Germanic. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 1: 15–40.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. 2008a. Introduction. In Biberauer, T. (ed.) The limits of syntactic variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. (ed.) 2008b. The limits of syntactic variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. 2009. How “well-behaved” is Afrikaans? V2 in Modern Spoken Afrikaans. In Besten, H., Hinskens, F. and Koch, J. (eds) Ein Tryptichon. Amsterdam: Voortgang, 176–208.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. and D'Alessandro, R.. 2006. Syntactic doubling and the encoding of voice in Eastern Abruzzese. In Baumer, D., Montero, D. and Scanlon, M. (eds) Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 87–95.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A. and Roberts, I.. 2007. Disharmonic word-order systems and the Final-over-Final-Constraint (FOFC). In A. Bisetto, A. Barbieri and F. (eds) Proceedings of XXXIII Incontro di Grammatica Generativa. (Available on-line at:http://amsacta.cib.unibo.it/archive/00002397/01/PROCEEDINGS_IGG33.pdf)
Biberauer, T. and Richards, M.. 2006. True optionality: when the grammar doesn't mind. In Boeckx, C. (ed.) Minimalist essays. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 35–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I.. 2004. Evidence that V2 involves two movements: a reply to Müller. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics 1: 41–62.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2005. Changing EPP-parameters in the history of English: accounting for variation and change. English Language and Linguistics 9, 1: 5–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2006. The loss of V-Aux orders and remnant fronting in Late Middle English: causes and consequences. In Hartmann, J. and Molnárfi, L. (eds) Comparative studies in Germanic Syntax: From A(frikaans) to Z(ürich German). Amsterdam: Benjamins, 263–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2008. Cascading parameter changes: internally driven change in Middle and Early Modern English. In Eythórsson, Th. (ed.) Grammatical change and linguistic theory: the Rosendal papers. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 79–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. and Roberts, I. 2009. The return of the subset principle. In Crisma, P. and Longobardi, G. (eds) Historical syntax and linguistic theory. New York: Oxford University Press, 8–74.Google Scholar
Blevins, J. 2003. Passives and impersonals. Journal of Linguistics 39: 473–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, J. 1995. Morphosyntax: the syntax of verbal inflection. PhD dissertation: MIT.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. 2002. A-chains at the PF-interface: copies and ‘covert’ movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 197–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, J. and Jonas, D.. 1996. Subject positions and the roles of TP. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 195–236.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. and Landau, I.. 2007. Fact and fiction in Icelandic control. To appear in Linguistic Inquiry.
Bobaljik, J. and Thráinsson, H.. 1998. Two heads aren't always better than one. Syntax 1: 37–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boden, M. 2006. Mind and machine: The history of cognitive science, Volume I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. 2003. Islands and chains. Resumption as derivational residue. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C. Forthcoming. Approaching parameters from below. In Di Sciullo, A-M. and Boeckx, C. (eds) Biolinguistic approaches to language evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boeckx, C. and Hornstein, N.. 2003. Reply to ‘Control is not Movement’. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 269–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C. and Hornstein, N. 2004. Movement under control. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 431–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. 1977. Meaning and form. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Borer, H. 1984. Parametric syntax. Case studies in Semitic and Romance languages. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Borer, H. 1986. I-Subjects. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 375–416.
Borer, H. 1989. Anaphoric Agr. In Jaeggli, O. and Safir, K. (eds) The null subject parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 69–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borsley, R., Tallerman, M. and Willis, D.. 2007. The syntax of Welsh. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2001. On the nature of the syntax-phonology interface: cliticization and related phenomena. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. 2002. On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 351–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Ž. and Nunes, J.. 2007. The copy theory of movement: A view from PF. In Corver, N. and Nunes, J. (eds) The copy theory of movement. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 13–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandi, L. and Cordin, P.. 1989. Two Italian dialects and the null subject parameter. In Jaeggli, O. and Safir, K. (eds) The null subject parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 111–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breivik, L. 1990. Existential ‘there’: a synchronic and diachronic study. Oslo: Novus Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. 1971. Sentence stress and syntactic transformations. Language 47: 257–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. 1994. Locative inversion and the architecture of universal grammar. Language 70: 72–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, H. 2000. Against feature strength: the case of Scandinavian object shift. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 673–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, H., Corver, N., Huybregts, R., Kleinhenz, U. and Koster, J. (eds.). 2005. Organising grammar: linguistic studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Burridge, K. 1983. Syntactic change in Germanic. Aspects of language change in Germanic with particular reference to Middle Dutch. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, N. and Poole, G.. 2006a. Syntax vs. phonology: a representational approach to stylistic fronting and verb-second in Icelandic. Lingua 116: 562–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton-Roberts, N. and Poole, G. 2006b. ‘Virtual conceptual necessity’, feature dissociation, and the Saussurian legacy in generative grammar. Journal of Linguistics 42: 575–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burzio, L. 1981. Intransitive verbs and Italian auxiliaries. PhD dissertation: MIT.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. 1986. Italian syntax: a Government-Binding approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabredo-Hofherr, P. 2004. Impersonal pronouns in Somali, German and French. Paper presented at Syntax of the World's Languages 1, Leipzig.
Calder, G. 1990. A Gaelic grammar. Glasgow: Gairm Press.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. 1990. Impersonal constructions and sentential arguments in German. Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. 1997. Subjects and clause structure. In Haegeman, L. (ed.) The new comparative syntax. London: Longman, 33–63.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. 2002. Against optional and zero clitics. Right dislocation and marginalization. Studia Linguistica 56: 29–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. 2004. Toward a cartography of subject positions. In Rizzi, L. (ed.) The structure of CP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 115–65.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. and Repetti, L.. 2006a. Proclitic vs. enclitic pronouns in Northern Italian dialects. Talk given at the 1st Cambridge Italian Dialect Syntax Meeting.
Cardinaletti, A. and Repetti, L. 2006b. Subject clitics in interrogative sentences: phonology, syntax and microvariation. Unpublished ms: SUNNY Stony Brook/University of Venice.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. and Starke, M.. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of the three classes of pronouns. In Riemsdijk, H. (ed.) Clitics in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 145–235.Google Scholar
Carilho, E. 2008. Beyond doubling: overt expletives in European Portuguese dialects. In Barbiers, S., Ham, M., Koeneman, O. and Lekakou, M. (eds) Microvariations in syntactic doubling. Bingley: Emerald, 299–322.Google Scholar
Carnie, A., Dooley, S. and Harley, H. (eds). 2005. Verb first. On the syntax of verb-initial languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRef
Carnie, A. and Guilfoyle, E. (eds). 2000. The syntax of verb-initial languages. New York: Oxford University Press.
Carnie, A., Harley, H. and Pyatt, E.. 2000. VSO order as raising to Comp. In Carnie, A. and Guilfoyle, E. (eds) The syntax of verb-initial languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 39–60.Google Scholar
Cecchetto, C. 1999. A comparative analysis of left and right dislocation in Romance. Studia Linguistica 53: 40–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cecchetto, C. 2000. Doubling structures and reconstruction. Probus 12: 93–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cecchetto, C. and Donati, C.. 2007. On labelling: Principle C and head movement. Studies in Linguistics, Volume 1: 16–37.Google Scholar
Chenal, A. 1986. Le franco-provençal valdôtain. Aosta: Musumeci Editeur.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics, 6(4): 339–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1964. Current issues in linguistic theory. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1971. Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In D. Steinberg and L. Jacobovits (eds) Semantics, 183–216.
Chomsky, N. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, S. and Kiparsky, P. (eds) A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston, 232–86.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of language: its nature, origin, and use. Praeger: New York.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1991. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In Freidin, R. (ed.) Principles and parameters in comparative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 117–154.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale, K. and Keyser, J. (eds) The view from Building 20: essays in Linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–52.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1995a. Bare phrase structure. In Webelhuth, G. (ed.) Government and Binding theory and the minimalist program. Oxford: Blackwell, 383–439.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1995b. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In Martin, R., Michaels, D. and Uriagereka, J. (eds) Step by step: essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 89–156.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.) Ken Hale: a life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–53.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2002. On nature and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Belletti, A. (ed.) Structures and beyond: the cartography of syntactic structures, Volume 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 104–13.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Sauerland, U. and Gärtner, G.-M. (eds) Interface + Recursion = Language? Chomsky's minimalism and the view from syntax and semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1–29.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2008. On phases. In Freidin, R., Otero, C. and Zubizarreta, M-L. (eds) Foundational issues in linguistic theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 133–66.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. and Halle, M.. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. and Lasnik, H.. 1977. Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 425–504.Google Scholar
Chung, S. 2005. What fronts? On the VP raising account of verb-initial order. In Carnie, A., Harley, H. and Dooley, S. (eds) On the syntax of verb-initial languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 9–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, S. and Ladusaw, W.. 2003. Restriction and saturation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Churchward, C. 1953. Tongan Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 1988. On si constructions and the theory of ARB. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 521–81.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 239–97.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. A crosslinguistic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clackson, J. 2004. Latin. In Woodward, R. (ed.) The Cambridge encyclopedia of the world's ancient languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 789–811.Google Scholar
Clark, R. and Roberts, I.. 1993. A computational approach to language, learnability and language change. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 299–345.Google Scholar
Cole, M. Forthcoming. Null Subjects: A reanalysis of the data.
Costa, J. 2001a. Marked versus unmarked inversion and optimality theory. In Hulk, A. and Pollock, J-Y. (eds) Subject inversion in Romance and the theory of Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 91–106.Google Scholar
Costa, J. 2001b. Postverbal subjects and agreement in unaccusative contexts in European Portuguese. The Linguistic Review 18: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, J. 2004. Subject positions and interfaces: the case of European Portuguese. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cottell, S. 1995. The representation of tense in modern Irish. Geneva Generative Papers 3: 105–24.Google Scholar
Cowper, E. and Currie Hall, D.. 2008. Argumenthood, pronouns and nominal feature geometry. To appear in Ghomeshi, J., Paul, I. and Wiltschko, M. (eds) Determiners: variation and universals. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 2003. Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Csató, E. and Johansen, L.. 1998. Turkish. In Johansen, L. and Csató, E. (eds) The Turkic languages. London: Routledge, 203–35.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. 1999. Syntactic nuts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. and Jackendoff, R.. 2001. Control is not movement. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 493–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, O. 1996. Predicate, subject and topic in Malagasy. Oceanic Linguistics 35, 2: 167–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Alessandro, R. and Roberts, I.. 2006. Split ergativity in Abruzzese and the null-subject parameter. Paper given at the 34th Romance Linguistics Seminar, University of Cambridge. (Available on-line at: http://www.robertadalessandro.it/files/DAlessandro_Roberts_Abruzzese.pdf)
D'Alessandro, R. and Roberts, I. 2008. Movement and agreement in Italian past participles and defective phases. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 477–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, W. and Dubinsky, S.. 2001. Functional architecture and the distribution of subject properties. In Davies, W. and Dubinsky, S. (eds) Objects and other subjects: grammatical functions, functional categories, and configurationality. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 247–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, W. and Dubinsky, S. 2004. The grammar of raising and control. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deal, A. 2008. The origin and content of expletives: evidence from ‘selection’. To appear in Syntax.
Déchaîne, R. and Wiltschko, M.. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 409–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dell, F. 1985. Les règles et les sons. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Diesing, M. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Diesing, M. and Jelinek, E.. 1995. Distributing arguments. Natural Language Semantics 3: 123–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dikken, M. 1995. Particles. On the syntax of verb-particle, triadic, and causative constructions. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dikken, M. 2007. Questionnaire study on Dutch that-trace effects: stimuli and results. Unpublished ms: CUNY. [Available on-line at: http://web.gc.cuny.edu/dept/lingu/dendikken/docs/dutch_that_trace_results.pdf]Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, A-M. 1990. On the properties of clitics. Binding in Romance. Carleton University, Ottawa: Canadian Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
Doherty, C. 1996. Clausal structure and the modern Irish copula. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doherty, C. 1997. Predicate initial constructions in Irish. In Agbayani, B. and Tang, S-W. (eds) Proceedings of the Fifteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information, 81–95.Google Scholar
Doherty, C. 2000. Residual verb second in Early Irish: on the nature of Bergin's construction. Diachronica 17: 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, B. 1993. A grammar of Afrikaans. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doron, E. 2000. VSO and left-conjunct agreement: biblical Hebrew vs. modern Hebrew. In Carnie, A. and Guilfoyle, E. (eds) The syntax of verb initial languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 75–96.Google Scholar
Dresher, E. 1992. A learning model for a parametric theory in phonology. In Levine, R. (ed.) Formal grammar: theory and implementation. New York: Oxford University Press, 290–317.Google Scholar
Dresher, E. 1999. Charting the learning path: cues to parameter setting. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 27–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. 1992. On the Greenbergian word-order correlations. Language 68: 81–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. 2005. Relationship between the order of object and verb and the order of adposition and noun phrase. In Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M., Gil, D. and Comrie, B. (eds) The world atlas of language structures, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 386–89.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. 2007. Review of Frederick J. Newmeyer, Possible and probable languages: a generative perspective on linguistic typology. Journal of Linguistics 43: 244–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duarte, E. 1995. A perda do principio evite pronome no português brasileiro. PhD dissertation: Instituto de estudos da linguagem, UNICAMP.Google Scholar
Duarte, E. 2000. The loss of the ‘Avoid Pronoun’ principle in Brazilian Portuguese. In Kato, M. and Negrão, E. (eds) Brazilian Portuguese and the null subject parameter. Frankfurt: Vervuert, 17–36.Google Scholar
Dupuis, F. 1989. L'expression du sujet dans le subordonnées en ancien français. PhD dissertation: Montreal.Google Scholar
Egerland, V. 2003. Impersonal pronouns in Scandinavian and Romance. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 71: 75–102.Google Scholar
Ellegård, A. 1953. The auxiliary ‘do’: the establishment and regulation of its use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax: root, structure-preserving and local transformations. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. 1978. The verbal complex V-V' in French. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 151–75.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. and Seely, D.. 2002. Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, S. and Seely, D. 2006. Derivations in minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evers, A. 1975. The transformational cycle of Dutch and German. PhD dissertation: University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Falk, C. 1993a. Non-referential subjects in the history of Swedish. PhD dissertation: University of Lund.Google Scholar
Falk, C. 1993b. Non-referential subjects and agreement in the history of Swedish. Lingua 89: 143–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fassi Fehri, A. 1993. Issues in the structure of Arabic clauses and words. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fassi Fehri, A. Forthcoming. Arabic silent pronouns, person and voice. Forthcoming in Transactions of the Philological Society.
Felser, C. 2004. Wh-copying, phases, and successive cyclicity. Lingua 114: 543–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferraresi, G. 1991. Word order and phrase structure in Gothic. PhD dissertation: University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Ferraresi, G. 2005. Word order and phrase structure in Gothic. Leuven: Peeters Publishers.Google Scholar
Ferreira, M. 2004. Hyperraising and null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 46: 57–85.Google Scholar
Figueiredo Silva, M. 2000. Main and embedded null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese. In Kato, M. and Negrão, E. (eds) Brazilian Portuguese and the null subject parameter. Frankfurt: Vervuert, 127–45.Google Scholar
Fischer, O., Kemenade, A., Koopman, W. and Wurff, W. (eds). 2000. The syntax of early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fitzpatrick, J. 2006. Deletion through movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24: 399–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, D. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Franks, R. 1995. Parameters of Slavic morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, M. 2007. Subjects, topics, and the interpretation of referential pro. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 691–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, M. and Hinterhölzl, R.. 2007. Types of topics in German and Italian. In Winkler, S. and Schwabe, K. (eds) On information structure, meaning and form. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 87–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeze, R. 1992. Existentials and other locatives. Language 68: 553–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeze, R. 2001. Existential constructions. In Haspelmath, M., König, E., Oesterreicher, W. and Raible, W. (eds) Language typology and language universals, Volume 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 941–53.Google Scholar
Freidin, R. 2004. Syntactic structures redux. Syntax, 7,2: 101–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, W. 2001. About the whereabouts of indefinites. Theoretical Linguistics 27: 137–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, W. and Pittner, K.. 1998. Zur Positionierung von Adverbialen im deutschen Mittelfeld. Linguistische Berichte 176: 489–534.Google Scholar
Fuss, E. 2003. On the historical core of V2 in Germanic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 26,2: 195–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuss, E. 2005. The rise of agreement. A formal approach to the syntax and grammaticalization of agreement. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gallego, Á. 2008. Phase theory and parametric variation. PhD dissertation: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Gelderen, E. 1993. The rise of functional categories. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gianollo, C., Guardiano, C. and Longobardi, G.. 2008. Three fundamental issues in parametric linguistics. In Biberauer, T. (ed.) The limits of syntactic variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 109–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gildersleeve, B. and Lodge, G.. 1895/1997. Latin grammar. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press.Google Scholar
Gilligan, G. 1987. A cross linguistic approach to the pro-drop parameter. PhD dissertation: University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Giorgi, A. and Pianesi, F.. 1997. Tense and aspect. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gold, E. 1999. Aspect, tense and the lexicon: expression of time in Yiddish. PhD dissertation: Toronto.Google Scholar
Goodall, G. 2001. The EPP in Spanish. In Davies, W. and Dubinsky, S. (eds) Objects and other subjects: grammatical functions, functional categories, and configurationality. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 193–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, D. 1985. The Oxford book of Late Medieval prose and verse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. 1963/2007. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J. (ed.) Universals of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 58–90. Reprinted in Roberts, I. (ed.) 2007. Comparative grammar, Volume 1, 41–74.Google Scholar
Grévisse, M. 1980. Le bon usage. Paris: Glembloux.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, G. 1989. Small pro in German. In Grewendorf, G. and Sternefeld, W. (eds) Scrambling and barriers. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 294–315.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. and Samek-Lodovici, V.. 1998. Optimal subjects and subject universals. In Barbosa, P., Fox, D., Hagstrom, P., McGinnis, M. and Pesetsky, D. (eds) Optimality and competition in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 193–219.Google Scholar
Groat, E. 1999. Raising the case of expletives. In Epstein, S. and Hornstein, N. (eds) Working minimalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 27–44.Google Scholar
Guasti, M.-T. and Rizzi, L.. 1999. Agreement and tense as distinct syntactic positions: evidence from acquisition. Unpublished ms: Università di Siena.Google Scholar
Guilfoyle, E., Hung, L. H. and Travis, L.. 1992. Spec of IP and Spec of VP: two subjects in Austronesian languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10: 375–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutman, E. 2004. Third person null subjects in Hebrew, Finnish and Rumanian: an accessibility theoretic account. Journal of Linguistics 40: 463–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haeberli, E. 1999. On the word order ‘XP-subject’ in the Germanic languages. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 3: 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haeberli, E. 2002. Features, categories and the syntax of A-positions. Cross-linguistic variation in the Germanic languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L. 1990. Subject pronouns and subject clitics in West Flemish. The Linguistic Review 7: 333–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L. 1992. Theory and description in generative syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 2000. Adult null subjects in non pro-drop languages. In Friedemann, M.-A. and Rizzi, L. (eds) The acquisition of syntax: studies in comparative developmental linguistics. London: Longman, 129–69.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 2006. Subject omission in present-day written English: on the theoretical relevance of peripheral data. Rivista di grammatica generativa 31.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 1993. Deutsche Syntax Generativ. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 2000. OV is more basic than VO. In Svenonius, P. (ed.) The derivation of VO and OV. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 45–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider, H. 2005. Mittelfeld phenomena. Scrambling in Germanic. In Everaert, M. and Riemsdijk, H. (eds) The Blackwell companion to syntax. Oxford: Blackwell, 204–74.Google Scholar
Haider, H. and Rosengren, I.. 1998. Scrambling. Sprache und Pragmatik 49: 1–104.Google Scholar
Haider, H. and Rosengren, I. 2003. Scrambling: non-triggered chain formation in OV languages. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 15,3: 203–67.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, A. 1975. Suomen sitä: pragmatiikan heijastuma syntaksissa. Sananjalka 17: 25–41. [Finnish sitä: A reflection of pragmatics in syntax.]Google Scholar
Hakulinen, A. and Karttunen, L.. 1973. Missing persons: on generic sentences in Finnish. Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: 157–71.
Hale, K. and Keyser, S.. 2000. Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hall, R. A. 1950. The reconstruction of Proto-Romance. Language 26: 6–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, M. and Marantz, A.. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, K. and Keyser, J. (eds) The view from Building 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 111–76.Google Scholar
Harris, M. 1978. The evolution of French syntax: a comparative approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Harris, M. 1988. French. In Harris, M. and Vincent, N. (eds) The Romance languages. London: Routledge, 209–45.Google Scholar
Hartmann, J. 2008. Expletives in existentials. PhD dissertation: Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2001. The European linguistic area: Standard Average European. In Haspelmath, M., König, E., Oesterreicher, W. and Raible, W. (eds) Language typology and language universals. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1492–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M., Gil, D. and Comrie, B. (eds) 2005. World atlas of language sructures. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hauser, M., Chomsky, N. and Fitch, T.. 2002. The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?Science 298: 1569–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawkins, J. 1983. Word order universals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. 1990. A parsing theory of word order universals. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 221–62.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazout, I. 2004. The syntax of existential constructions. Linguistic Inquiry35, 3: 393–430.CrossRef
Helasvuo, M-L. 2006. Passive – personal or impersonal. In Helasvuo, M.-L. and Campbell, L. (eds) Grammar from the human perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 233–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helasvuo, M-L. and Laitinen, L.. 2006. Person in Finnish. Paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations and interactions. In Helasvuo, M.-L. and Campbell, L. (eds) Grammar from the human perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 173–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendrik, R. 1996. Some syntactic effects of suppletion in the Celtic copulas. In Borsely, R. and Roberts, I. (eds) The syntax of the Celtic languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermon, G. and Yoon, J.. 1989. The licensing and identification of pro and the typology of AGR. Chicago Linguistic Society 25,1. 174–92.Google Scholar
Heycock, C. 1995. Asymmetries in reconstruction. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 547–70.Google Scholar
Heycock, C. and Kroch, A.. 1999. Pseudocleft connectivity: implications for the LF interface level. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 365–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heycock, C. and Sorace, A.. 2007. Verb movement in Faroese: new perspectives on an old question. Nordlyd 35.Google Scholar
Hinterhölzl, R. 2005. Scrambling, remnant movement, and restructuring in West Germanic. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, T. and Mulder, R.. 1990. Unergatives as copular verbs; locational and existential predication. The Linguistic Review 7: 1–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, A. 2000. Scandinavian stylistic fronting: how any category can become an expletive. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 445–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, A. 2001. The syntax of yes and no in Finnish. Studia Linguistica 55: 141–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, A. 2002. Expletives and agreement in Scandinavian passives. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 4: 85–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, A. 2003a. Topic-drop or VP-focus. In Delsing, L-O.et al. (eds) Grammar in focus. Festschrift for Christer Platzack 18 November 2003. Lund: Department of Scandinavian Languages, 159–66.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. 2003b. Yes/no-questions and the relation between tense and polarity in English and Finnish. In P. Pica (ed.) Linguistic Variation Yearbook3: 43–68.
Holmberg, A. 2005. Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 533–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, A. 2006. Stylistic Fronting. In Everaert, M. and Riemsdijk, H. (eds) The Blackwell companion to syntax. Oxford: Blackwell, 530–63.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. 2007. Null subjects and polarity focus. Studia Linguistica 61: 212–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, A. (ed.). 2009. Studia Linguistica: special issue on partial pro-drop 63, 1.
Holmberg, A. and Hróarsdóttir, Th.. 2004. Agreement in dative constructions in Icelandic. Lingua 113: 997–1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, A., Nayudu, A. and Sheehan, M.. 2009. Three partial null-subject languages: a comparison of Brazilian Portuguese, Finnish and Marathi. In Studia Linguistica63: 59–97.
Holmberg, A. and Nikanne, U.. 2002. Expletives, subjects and topics in Finnish. In Svenonius, P. (ed.) Subjects, expletives and the EPP. New York: Oxford University Press, 71–105.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A., Nikanne, U., Oraviita, I., Reime, H. and Trosterud, T.. 1993. The structure of INFL and the finite clause in Finnish. In Holmberg, A. and Nikanne, U. (eds) Case and other functional categories in Finnish syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 175–206.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. and Platzack, C.. 1991. On the role of inflection in Scandinavian syntax. In Abraham, W., Kosmeijer, W. and Reuland, E. (eds) Issues in Germanic syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 93–118.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. and Platzack, C. 1995. The role of inflection in Scandinavian syntax. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoop, H. 1996. Case configuration and noun phrase interpretation. New York: Garland.
Hornstein, N. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. 2000. Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. 2003. On control. In Hendrick, R. (ed.) Minimalist syntax. Oxford: Blackwell, 6–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horvath, J. 2000. Interfaces vs. the computational system in the syntax of focus. In Bennis, H., Everaert, M. and Reuland, E. (eds) Interface strategies. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, 183–206.Google Scholar
Horvath, J. 2006. Pied-piping. In Everaert, M. and Riemsdijk, H. (eds) The Blackwell companion to syntax. Oxford: Blackwell, 569–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horvath, J. 2007. Separating ‘focus movement’ from focus. In Karimi, S.et al. (eds) Phrasal and clausal architecture. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Householder, F. 1981. Syntax of Apollonius Dyscolus. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hrafnbjargarson, G. 2004a. Stylistic fronting. Studia Linguistica 58, 2: 88–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hrafnbjargarson, G. 2004b. Oblique subjects and stylistic fronting in the history of Scandinavian and English: the role of IP-Spec. PhD dissertation: University of Aarhus.Google Scholar
Huang, J. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. PhD dissertation: MIT.Google Scholar
Huang, J. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 531–74.Google Scholar
Huang, J. 1989. Pro-drop in Chinese: a generalized control theory. In Jaeggli, O. and Safir, K. (eds) The null subject parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 185–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, J. 1993. Reconstruction and the structure of VP. Linguistic Inquiry 24:103–38.Google Scholar
Huang, J. 2007. The macro-history of Chinese syntax and the theory of language change. Talk given at the University of Chicago.
Huang, Y. 1994. The syntax and pragmatics of anaphora: a study with special reference to Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, J. 2000. Anaphora. A cross-linguistic study. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hulk, A. 1986. Subject clitics and the pro-drop parameter. In Coopmans, P., Bordelois, Y. and Dotson-Smith, B. (eds) Going Romance: formal parameters of generative grammar II. Dordrecht: Foris, 107–20.Google Scholar
Hulk, A. 1991. Les pronoms clitiques sujet et la théorie linguistique. Actes du XVIIIe congrès international de linguistique et de philologie romanes. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 504–14.Google Scholar
Hulk, A. and Pollock, J-Y.. 2001. Subject positions in Romance and the theory of Universal Grammar. In Hulk, A. and Pollock, J-Y (eds) Subject inversion in Romance and the theory of Universal Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–19.Google Scholar
Ihsane, T. and Puskas, G.. 2001. Specific is not definite. Generative grammar in Geneva 2: 39–54.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, J. 1997. I-Topikalisierung. Linguistische Berichte 168: 91–133.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, O. 1982. Topics in Romance syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, O. and Safir, K.. 1989. The null subject parameter. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaggar, P. 2001. Hausa. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jayaseelan, K. 1999. Empty pronouns in Dravidian. In Jayaseelan, K. (ed.) Parametric studies in Malayalam syntax. New Delhi: Allied Publishers, 14–25.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1909–49. A modern English grammar on historical principles, I–VII. London/Copenhagen: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1924. The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Johns, C. 2007. Interpreting agreement. PhD dissertation: Durham University.Google Scholar
Johnson, K. and Vikner, S.. 1994. The position of the verb in Scandinavian infinitives. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 53: 61–84.Google Scholar
Jonas, D. 1996. Clause structure and verb syntax in Scandinavian and English. PhD dissertation: Harvard.Google Scholar
Jónsson, J. 1991. Clausal architecture and case in Icelandic. PhD dissertation: University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Jouitteau, M. 2004. Gestures as expletives, multichannel syntax. In Schmeiser, B., Chand, V., Kelleher, A. and Rodriguez, A. (eds) Proceedings of WCCFL 23. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 422–35.Google Scholar
Jouitteau, M. 2005. Nominal properties of vPs in Breton: a hypothesis for the typology of VSO languages. In Carnie, A., Harley, H. and Dooley, S. (eds) Verb first. On the syntax of verb-initial languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 265–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Julien, M. 2002. Syntactic heads and word formation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kanerva, J. 1987. Morphological integrity and syntax: the evidence from Finnish possessive suffixes. Language 63: 498–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kato, M. 1999. Strong and weak pronominals in the null subject parameter. Probus 11:1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kato, M. 2000. The partial pro-drop nature and the restricted VS order in Brazilian Portuguese. In Kato, M. and Negrão, E. (eds) Brazilian Portuguese and the null subject parameter. Frankfurt: Vervuert, 223–58.Google Scholar
Kato, M. and Negrão, E. (eds). 2000. The null subject parameter in Brazilian Portuguese. Frankfurt: Vervuert-Iberoamericana.
Kato, M. and Raposo, E.. 1994. European and Brazilian Portuguese word order: questions, focus and topic constructions. In C. Parodi, C. Quicoli, M. Saltarelli and M.-L. Zubizarreta (eds) Aspects of Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers from the LSRL XXVI. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 267–78.Google Scholar
Kato, M., and Raposo, E.. 2006. Topicalization in European and Brazilian Portuguese. In Camacho, J., Flores-Ferrán, N., Sánchez, L., Déprez, V. and Cabrera, M.-J. (eds) Romance Linguistics 2006: Selected papers from the 36th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 199–212.
Kauffman, S. 1995. At Home in the Universe. London: Viking.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 1972. Subject inversion in French interrogatives. In Casagrande, J. and Saciuk, B. (eds) Generative studies in Romance linguistics. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 70–126.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 1975 French syntax: the transformational cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 1983. Chains, categories external to S, and French complex inversion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 107–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. 1991. Romance clitics, verb movement and PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 647–86. Reprinted in Kayne (2000).Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 2000. Parameters and universals. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 2005a Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference to English and French. In Cinque, G. and Kayne, R. (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–69.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 2005b. Movement and silence. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. 2008a. Expletives, datives, and the tension between morphology and syntax. In Biberauer, T. (ed.) The limits of syntactic variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 175–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. 2008b. Antisymmetry and the lexicon. Unpublished ms: New York University.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. and Pollock, J-Y.. 1978. Stylistic inversion, successive cyclicity and move NP in French. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 595–621.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. and Pollock, J-Y. 2001/2005. New thoughts on stylistic inversion. In Hulk, A. and Pollock, J.-Y. (eds) Subject inversion in Romance and the theory of Universal Grammar. New York: Oxford University Press, 107–62. Reprinted in Kayne (2005b).Google Scholar
Kemenade, A. 1987. Syntactic case and morphological case in the history of English. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, G. 1993. Modern Welsh: a comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1973. ‘Elsewhere’ in phonology. In Anderson, S. and Kiparsky, P. (eds) A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston, 93–106.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 2001. Structural case in Finnish. Lingua 111: 315–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiss, K. 1995. Introduction. In Katalin, K. (ed.) Discourse-configurational languages. New York: Oxford University Press, 3–27.Google Scholar
Kiss, K. 1996. Two subject positions in English. The Linguistic Review 13: 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiss, K. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74: 245–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koeneman, O. 2000. The flexible nature of verb movement. PhD dissertation: Groningen.Google Scholar
Koeneman, O. and Neeleman, A.. 2001. Predication, verb movement and the distribution of expletives. Lingua 111:189–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornfilt, J. 1985. Case marking, agreement, and empty categories in Turkish. PhD dissertation: Harvard.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J. 1997. Turkish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J. 2003. Turkish. In Frawley, W. (ed.) International encyclopedia of linguistics, Volume IV, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 301–7.Google Scholar
Kosmeijer, W. 1986. The status of the finite inflection in Icelandic and Swedish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 26: 1–41.Google Scholar
Koster, J. 1987. Domains and dynasties: the radical autonomy of syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, A. and Selkirk, E.. 2007. Default phrase stress, prosodic phrasing and the spellout edge. The Linguistic Review 24: 93–135.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1: 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, A. 1994. Morphosyntactic variation. In Beals, K., Knippen, R., Melnar, L., Suzuki, H. and Zeinfeld, E. (eds) Proceedings of the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 180–201.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. 2000. Syntactic change. In Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds) The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 629–739.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. and Taylor, A.. 1997. Verb movement in Old and Middle English: dialect variation and language contact. In Kemenade, A. and Vincent, N. (eds) Parameters of morphosyntactic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 297–325.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Y. 1988. Whether we agree or not: a comparative syntax of English and Japanese. Lingvisticae Investigationes 12: 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laitinen, L. 1995. Nollapersoona [the Null Person]. Virittäjä 1995: 337–58.Google Scholar
Laitinen, L. 2006. Zero person in Finnish. In Helasvuo, M.-L. and Campbell, L. (eds) Grammar from the human perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 210–31.Google Scholar
Laitinen, L. and Vilkuna, M.. 1993. Case-marking in necessive constructions. In Holmberg, A. and Nikanne, U. (eds) Case and other functional categories in Finnish syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 23–48.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 1981. Topic, antitopic and verb agreement in non-standard French. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 2000. When subjects behave like objects: an analysis of the merging of S and O in sentence focus constructions across languages. Studies in Language 24: 611–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 1999. Elements of control. PhD thesis, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Landau, I. 2000. Elements of control: structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 2003. Movement out of control. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 471–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 2004. The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 811–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 2006a. Chain resolution in Hebrew VP-fronting. Syntax 9: 32–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. 2006b. EPP extensions. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 485–523.CrossRef
Larson, R. and Segal, G.. 1995. Knowledge of meaning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. 1995. Case and expletives revisited: on greed and other human failings. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 615–33. Reprinted in Lasnik, H. 1999. Minimalist Analysis. London: Blackwell, 74–96.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H., Depiante, M. and Stepanov, A.. 2000. Syntactic structures revisited. Contemporary lectures on classic transformational theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Léautaud, P. 1988. Le Fléau. Journal particulier. 1917+1939. Paris: Mercure de France.Google Scholar
Lechner, W. 2006. An interpretive effect of head movement. In Frascarelli, M. (ed.) Phases of interpretation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 45–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, C. and Thompson, S.. 1976. Subject and topic: a new typology of language. In Li, C. (ed.) Subject and topic. London/New York: Academic Press, 457–89.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. 1991. How to set parameters: arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lindseth, M. 1998. Null-subject properties of Slavic languages, with special reference to Russian, Czech and Sorbian. Munchen: Sagner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Löflund, J. 1998. Suomen kirjoitetun kielen yleispassiivi. [The general passive in written Finnish.] Turku: Åbo Akademi University Press.Google Scholar
Lohndal, T. 2009. That-t in Scandinavian and elsewhere: variation in the position of C. Studia Linguistica 63: 204–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G. 1991. Alcune riflessioni informali sulla posizione del verbo gotico e le prospettive di una sintassi comparata dei complementatori generici. Unpublished ms: University of Venice.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. 1994. Reference and proper names: a theory of N-Movement in syntax and Logical Form. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 609–65.Google Scholar
Longobardi, G. and Guardiano, C.. 2008. Evidence for syntax as a signal of historical relatedness. To appear in Lingua.
Lyngfelt, B. 2002. OT semantics and control. Rutgers optimality archive 411.Google Scholar
Lyons, C. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mac Eoin, G. 2002. Irish. In Martin, B. and Fife, J. (eds) The Celtic languages. London: Routledge, 101–44.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, D. 2003. Pashto. In Frawley, W. (ed.) International encyclopedia of linguistics, Volume III, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 251–57.Google Scholar
Maling, J. 1980. Inversion in embedded clauses in Modern Icelandic. Islenskt mal og almenn marfrædi 2: 175–93. Reprinted in Maling, J. and Zaenen, A. (eds). 1990. Modern Icelandic syntax. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 71–91.Google Scholar
Maling, J. 1993. Of nominative and accusative: the hierarchical assignment of grammatical case in Finnish. In Holmberg, A. and Nikanne, U. (eds) Case and other functional categories in Finnish syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 49–74.Google Scholar
Manninen, S. and Nelson, D.. 2004. What is a passive? The case of Finnish. Studia Linguistica 58(3): 212–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, R. and Roussou, A.. 2000. A minimalist theory of A-movement and control. Lingua 110: 409–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, R. and Savoia, L.. 2002. Parameters of subject inflection in Italian dialects. In Svenonius, P. (ed.) Subjects, expletives and the EPP. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 157–200.Google Scholar
Manzini, R. and Savoia, L. 2005. I dialetti italiani e romanci. Alessandria: Edizioni dell'Orso.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 2001. Words. WCCFL 20 handout: University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 2006. Phases and words. Unpublished ms: New York University.Google Scholar
Martin, R. 1996. A minimalist theory of PRO and control. PhD dissertation: University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Martin, R. 2001. Null Case and the distribution of PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 141–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martins, A. 2006. Emphatic affirmation and polarity. Contrasting European Portuguese with Brazilian Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan and Galician. In Doetjes, J. and Gonzales, P. (eds) Romance languages and linguistic theory 2004. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 197–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massam, D. 2000. VSO and VOS: aspects of Niuean word order. In Carnie, A. and Guilfoyle, E. (eds) The syntax of verb-initial languages. New York: Oxford University Press, 97–116.Google Scholar
Massam, D. 2001. On predication and the status of subjects in Niuean. In Davies, W. and Dubinsky, S. (eds) Objects and other subjects: grammatical functions, functional categories, and configurationality. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 225–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massam, D. 2005. Lexical categories, lack of inflection, and predicate fronting in Niuean. In Carnie, A., Dooley, S. and Harley, H. (eds) Verb first. On the syntax of verb-initial languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 227–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massam, D. and Smallwood, C.. 1997. Essential features of predication in English and Niuean. In K. Kusumoto (ed.) Proceedings of NELS27: 236–72.Google Scholar
Masullo, P. 1993. Two types of quirky subjects: Spanish versus Icelandic. In A. Shafer (ed.) Proceedings of NELS23: 303–17.Google Scholar
Mathieu, E. 2006. Stylistic fronting in Old French. Probus 18: 219–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matushansky, O. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37,1: 69–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mavrogiorgos, M. 2006. Morphology is at the edge. Unpublished ms: University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
May, R. 1985. Logical form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, C. 2009. On the necessity phi-features: the case of Bavarian subject extraction. In Panagiotidis, P. (ed.) The complementizer domain: subjects and wh-dependencies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. 1996. Subjects and subject positions in Irish. In Borsley, R. and Roberts, I. (eds) The syntax of the Celtic languages: a comparative perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 241–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, J. 2001. The morphosyntax of wh-extraction in Irish. Journal of Linguistics 37: 67–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, J. and Hale, K.. 1984. On the syntax of person-number inflection in modern Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 487–553.Google Scholar
McShane, M. 2009. Subject ellipsis in Russian and Polish. Studia Linguistica 63(1): 98–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menuzzi, S. 2004. A ordem verbo-sujeito no Português do Brasil: para uma comparação das abordagens formalistas e funcionalistas. Revista da ANPOLL 16: 349–84.Google Scholar
Milsark, R. 1974. Existential sentences in English. PhD dissertation: MIT. Published as: Milsark, R. 1979. Existential sentences in English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Mobbs, I. 2008. ‘Functionalism’, the design of the language faculty, and typology. Unpublished ms: University of Cambridge. (Available on-line at: http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000680)Google Scholar
Modesto, M. 2000a. On the identification of null arguments. PhD dissertation: University of Southern Califonia.Google Scholar
Modesto, M. 2000b. Null subjects without ‘rich’ agreement. In Kato, M. and Negrão, E. (eds) The Null Subject Parameter in Brazilian Portuguese. Frankfurt: Vervuert-Iberoamericana, 147–74.Google Scholar
Modesto, M. 2008. Topic prominence and null subjects. In Biberauer, T. (ed.) The limits of syntactic variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 375–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohr, S. 2005. Clausal architecture and subject positions. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moltmann, F. 2006. Generic one, arbitrary PRO, and the first person. Natural Language Semantics 14: 257–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montalbetti, M. 1984. After Binding. PhD dissertation: MIT.Google Scholar
Moro, A. 1997. The raising of predicates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morpurgo-Davies, A. 1998. History of linguistics, Volume IV: nineteenth-century linguistics (General Editor: G. Lepschy) London: Longman.Google Scholar
Mossé, F. 1968. Manual of Middle English. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Müller, G. 1998. Incomplete category fronting. A derivational approach to remnant movement in German. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, G. 2004a. Verb-second as vP-first. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 7,3: 179–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, G. 2004b. Argument encoding and the order of elementary operations. Unpublished ms: Leipzig. (Available on-line at: http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~muellerg/mu56.pdf)Google Scholar
Müller, G. 2004c. Phrase impenetrability and wh-intervention. In Stepanov, A., Fanselow, G. and Vogel, R. (eds) Minimality effects in syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Müller, G. 2005. Pro-drop and impoverishment. In Brandt, P. and Fuss, E. (eds) Form, structure and grammar. A Festschrift presented to Günther Grewendorf on the occasion of his 60th birthday. Tübingen: Narr, 93–115.Google Scholar
Müller, G. 2007. Some consequences of an impoverishment-based approach to morphological richness and pro-drop. Unpublished ms: Leipzig. (Available on-line at: http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~muellerg/mu228.pdf)Google Scholar
Munaro, N. and Pollock, J.-Y. 2005. Qu-est-ce-que (qu)-est-ce-que? A case study in comparative Romance interrogative syntax. In Cinque, G. and Kayne, R. (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 542–606.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. 1982. Parametrizing the notion ‘head’. Journal of Linguistic Research 2: 57–75.Google Scholar
Nash, L. and Rouveret, A.. 1997. Proxy categories in phrase structure theory. In K. Kusumoto (ed.) Proceedings of NELS27: 287–304.
Nayudu, A. 2008. Issues in the syntax of Marathi: A minimalist approach. PhD dissertation: Durham University.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A. 1994. Complex predicates. PhD dissertation: Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A. and Koot, H.. 2002. The configurational matrix. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 529–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, A. and Koot, H.. 2006. Syntactic haplology. In Everaert, M. and Riemsdijk, H. (eds) The Blackwell companion to syntax. Oxford: Blackwell, 684–710.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A. and Koot, H. 2008. Dutch scrambling and the nature of discourse templates. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 11(2): 137–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, A. and Reinhart, T.. 1998. Scrambling and the PF-interface. In Butt, M. and Geuder, W. (eds) The projection of arguments: lexical and compositional factors. Chicago: CSLI Publications, 309–53.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A. and Szendrői, K.. 2007. Radical pro-drop and the morphology of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 671–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, A. and Szendrői, K. 2008. Case morphology and radical pro-drop. In Biberauer, T. (ed.) The limits of syntactic variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 331–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, A. and Weerman, F.. 1999. Flexible syntax. A theory of Case and arguments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Negrão, E. 1997. Asymmetries in the distribution of overt and empty categories in Brazilian Portuguese. In Black, J. and Motapanyane, V. (eds) Clitics, pronouns and movement. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 217–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Negrão, E. and Müller, A.. 1996. As Mudanças no sistema pronominal do Português do Brasil: substitução ou especialização de formas?DELTA 12: 125–52.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. 2004. Against a parameter-setting approach to language variation. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 4: 181–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F. 2005. Possible and probable languages. A generative perspective on linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F. 2006. A rejoinder to ‘On the role of parameters in Universal Grammar: a reply to Newmeyer’ by Ian Roberts and Anders Holmberg. Unpublished ms: University of Washington (Seattle). (Available on-line at: http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/mtb23/NSP/Parametricdebate.html)Google Scholar
Newton, G. 2006. The development and loss of the Old Irish double system of verbal inflection. PhD dissertation: University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Nicolis, M. 2005. On pro-drop. PhD dissertation: Università degli Studi di Siena.Google Scholar
Nicolis, M. 2008. The null subject parameter and correlating properties: the case of creole languages. In Biberauer, T. (ed.) The limits of syntactic variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 271–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niyogi, P. 2006. The computational nature of language learning and evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Niyogi, P. and Berwick, R.. 1995. The logical problem of language change. A. I. Memo No. 1516, MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niyogi, P and Berwick, R. 1997. A dynamical systems model for language change. Complex Systems 11: 161–204.Google Scholar
Nunes, J. 1995. The copy theory of movement and linearization of chains in the minimalist program. PhD dissertation: University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Nunes, J. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
O'Neil, J. 1997. Means of control: deriving the properties of PRO in the minimalist program. PhD dissertation: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Ordóñez, F. 1997. Word order and clause structure in Spanish and other Romance languages. PhD dissertation: CUNY Graduate Center.Google Scholar
Ordóñez, F. 1998. Post-verbal asymmetries in Spanish. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16: 313–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ordóñez, F. 2000. The clausal structure of Spanish. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Ordóñez, F. 2006. The order of subjects in Spanish and Catalan. Talk given at the Encontro Lingua Falada e Escrita V, Federal University of Maceió.
Ordóñez, F. and Treviño, E.. 1999. Left dislocated subjects and the pro-drop parameter: a case study of Spanish. Lingua 107: 39–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otsuka, Y. 2005. Two derivations of VSO: a comparative study of Niuean and Tongan. In Carnie, A., Dooley, S. and Harley, H. (eds) Verb first. On the syntax of verb-initial languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 65–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouali, H. 2008. On C-to-T φ-feature transfer: the nature of agreement and anti-agreement in Berber. In D'Alessandro, R., Hrafnbjargarson, G. and Fischer, S. (eds) Agreement restrictions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter159–80.Google Scholar
Ouhalla, J. 1991. Functional categories and parametric variation. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouhalla, J. 1994. Verb movement and word order in Arabic. In Lightfoot, D. and Hornstein, N. (eds) Verb movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 41–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Öztürk, B. 2001. Turkish as a non-pro-drop language. In Taylan, E. (ed.) The verb in Turkish. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 239–60.Google Scholar
Öztürk, B. 2008. Non-configurationality: free word order and argument drop in Turkish. In Biberauer, T. (ed.) The limits of syntactic variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 411–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paesani, K. 2006. The case of special registers. In Progovac, L., Paesani, K., Casielles, E. and Barton, E. (eds) The syntax of nonsententials. Multidisciplinary perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 147–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, L. 1961. La lingua Latina. Bologna: Einaudi. [Italian translation of L. Palmer. 1954. The Latin language. London: Faber and Faber.]Google Scholar
Parry, M. 1994. Posizione dei clitici complemento nelle costruzioni verbali perifrastiche del piemontese. In G. Clivio and C. Pich (eds) At dël (X) Rëscontr antërnassional dë Studi an sla Lenga e la Literatura piemontéisa8: 247–59.
Paul, I. 2000. Malagasy clause structure. PhD dissertation: McGill University.Google Scholar
Paul, I. 2007. Missing topics in Malagasy headlines. In M. Radišić (ed.) Proceedings of the 2007 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, 10 pages.
Paul, I. 2008. Great coffee, that Maxwell House! In Efner, E. and Walkow, M. (eds) Proceedings of NELS 38. Amherst, Mass: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Pearson, M. 2001. The clause structure of Malagasy: a minimalist approach. PhD dissertation: UCLA.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. 1971. Deep and surface constraints in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. 1989. Language-particular processes and the Earliness Principle. Unpublished ms: MIT. (Available on-line at: http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/pesetsky/earliness.pdf)Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. and Torrego, E.. 2001. T-to-C movement: causes and consequences. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.) Ken Hale: a life in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 355–426.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. and Torrego, E. 2004. Tense, case and the nature of syntactic categories. In Guéron, J. and Lecarme, J. (eds) The syntax of time. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 495–538.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. and Torrego, E. 2006. Probes, goals and syntactic categories. In Otsu, Y. (ed.) Proceedings of the Seventh Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 262–94.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. and Torrego, E. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Karimi, S., Samiian, V. and Wilkins, W. (eds) Phrasal and clausal architecture: syntactic derivation and interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 193–220.Google Scholar
Piattelli-Palmarini, M. and Vercelli, D.. To appear. Language in an epigenetic framework. In Piattelli-Palmarini, M., Uriagereka, J. and Salaburu, P. (eds) Of minds and language: the Basque country encounter with Noam Chomsky. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pinto, M. 1994. Subjects in Italian: distribution and interpretation. In Bok-Bennema, R. and Cremers, C. (eds) Linguistics in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 175–87.Google Scholar
Pinto, M. 1997. Licensing and interpretation of inverted subjects in Italian. PhD dissertation: Utrecht.Google Scholar
Plath, S. 1983. The journal of Sylvia Plath. Edited by Hughes, T. and McCollough, F.. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
Platzack, C. 1985. The Scandinavian languages and the null subject parameter. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax20: 1–65.
Platzack, C. 1987. The Scandinavian languages and the null-subject parameter. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5: 377–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platzack, C. 1995. The loss of verb second in English and French. In Battye, A. and Roberts, I. (eds) Clause structure and language change. New York: Oxford University Press, 200–26.Google Scholar
Platzack, C. 2004. Agreement and the person phrase hypothesis. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 73: 83–112.Google Scholar
Poletto, C. 1990. Three types of subject clitics and the theory of pro. Unpublished ms: University of Venice.
Poletto, C. 2000. The higher functional field in the Northern Italian dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poletto, C. and Pollock, J.-Y.. 2004. On the left periphery of some Romance wh-questions. In Rizzi, L. (ed) The structure of IP and CP. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 251–96.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. 1986. Sur la syntaxe de EN et le parameter du sujet nul. In Ronat, M. and Couquaux, D. (eds) La grammaire modulaire. Paris: Les editions de minuit, 211–46.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. 1997. Langage et Cognition: introduction au programme minimaliste de la grammaire générative. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y. 2006. Subject clitics and complex inversion in French. In Everaert, M. and Riemsdijk, H. (eds) The Blackwell companion to syntax. Oxford: Blackwell, 601–59.Google Scholar
Ponelis, F. 1993. The development of Afrikaans. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Postal, P. 1977. About a ‘nonargument’ for raising. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 141–54.Google Scholar
Rackowski, A. and Travis, L.. 2000. V-initial languages: X or XP movement and adverbial placement. In Carnie, A. and Guilfoyle, E. (eds) The syntax of verb-initial languages. New York: Oxford University Press, 117–41.Google Scholar
Ramchand, G. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon. A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, G. and Svenonius, P.. 2008. Mapping a parochial lexicon onto a universal semantics. In Biberauer, T. (ed.) The limits of syntactic variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 219–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raposo, E. 1986. On the null object in European Portuguese. In Jaeggli, O. and Silva-Corvalán, C. (eds) Studies in Romance linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris, 373–90.Google Scholar
Rebuschi, G. and Tuller, L.. 1999. The grammar of focus. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reime, H. 1993. Accusative marking in Finnish. In Holmberg, A. and Nikanne, U. (eds) Case and other functional categories in Finnish syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 175–206.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. 1995. Interface strategies. OTS Working Papers in Linguistics. Utrecht.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. 2006. Interface strategies: optimal and costly computations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Renzi, L. and Vanelli, L.. 1983. I pronomi soggetto in alcune varietà romanze. In P. Benincà et al. (eds) Scritti linguisticiin onore di G.B. Pellegrini, Vol. 1. Pisa: Pacini, 121–45.Google Scholar
Rezac, M. 2003. The fine structure of cyclic Agree. Syntax 6: 156–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rezac, M. 2004. Elements of cyclic syntax: agree and merge. PhD dissertation: University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Richards, M. 2004. Object shift in North and West Germanic: optionality, scrambling and base-generated OV. PhD dissertation: University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Richards, M. 2007. On feature-inheritance: an argument from the Phase Impenetrability Condition. Linguistic Inquiry 38,3: 563–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, M. and Biberauer, T.. 2005. Explaining Expl. In Dikken, M. and Tortora, C. (eds) The function of function words and functional categories. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 115–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, N. 2001. Movement in language. Interactions and architectures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rivero, M-L. and Milojević Sheppard, M.. 2003. Indefinite reflexive clitics in Slavic: Polish and Slovenian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 89–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rix, H. 2004. Etruscan. In Woodward, R. (ed.) The Cambridge encyclopedia of the world's ancient languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 943–66.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1978. Violations of the wh-island constraint and the subjacency condition. In C. Dubisson, D. Lightfoot and Y.-C. Morin (eds) Montreal Working Papers in Linguistics11: 155–90.
Rizzi, L. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1986a. Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 501–57.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1986b. On the status of subject clitics in Romance. In Jaeggli, O. and Silva-Corvalán, C. (eds) Studies in Romance linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris, 391–420.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1987. Three remarks on null subjects. Talk given at the Workshop on Dialectology, GLOW X, University of Venice.
Rizzi, L. 1992. Early null subjects and root null subjects. In Hoekstra, T. and Schwartz, B. (eds) Language acquisition studies in generative grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 151–76.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1997. On the fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L. (ed) Elements of grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 281–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2006a. Grammatically-based target-inconsistencies in child language. In Deen, K., Nomura, J., Schulz, B. and Schwartz, B. (eds) The Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition – North America (GALANA). UCONN/MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2006b. On the form of chains: criteria positions and ECP effects. In Cheng, L. and Corver, N. (eds) Wh movement: moving on. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. and Roberts, I.. 1989. Complex inversion in French. Probus 1: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. & Shlonsky, U.. 2005. Strategies of subject extraction. In Gärtner, H.-M. and Sauerland, U. (eds) Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky's Minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 115–60.Google Scholar
Roberge, Y. 1986. The syntactic recoverability of null arguments. PhD dissertation: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Roberge, Y. and Vinet, M-T.. 1989. La variation dialectale en grammaire universelle. Montréal: Presses Universitaires de Montréal/Editions de l'Université de Sherbrooke.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 1985. Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 21–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 1993a. The nature of subject clitics in Franco-Provençal Valdôtain. In Belletti, A. (ed.) Dialects of Italy. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier, 319–53.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 1993b. Verbs and diachronic syntax: a comparative history of English and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 1996a. Remarks on the Old English C-system and diachrony of V2. In E. Brandner and G. Ferraresi (eds) Linguistische Berichte7: 154–67.
Roberts, I. 1996b. Comparative syntax. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 1998. Have-be raising, move F, and procrastinate. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 113–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 1999. Verb movement and markedness. In deGraff, M. (ed.) Language creation and change. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 287–328.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2001. Language change and learnability. In Bertolo, S. (ed.) Parametric linguistics and learnability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 81–125.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2004. The C-system in Brythonic Celtic languages, V2 and the EPP. In Rizzi, L. (ed.) The structure of CP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures, Volume 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 297–328.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2005. Principles and parameters in a VSO language. A case study in Welsh. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. 2007a. Diachronic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2007b. Introduction. In Roberts, I. (ed.) Comparative grammar: critical concepts. Volume II: the null subject parameter. London: Routledge, 1–44.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. 2008. The mystery of the overlooked discipline: modern syntactic theory and cognitive science. Unpublished ms: University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. Forthcoming a. Taraldsen's Generalisation and language change: two ways to lose null subjects. In Svenonius, P. (ed.) Festschrift for Tarald Taraldsen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roberts, I. Forthcoming b. Agreement and head movement: clitics, incorporation and detective goals. To appear with MIT Press.
Roberts, I. and Holmberg, A.. 2005. On the role of parameters in Universal Grammar: a reply to Newmeyer. In Broekhuis, H., Corver, N., Everaert, M. and Koster, J. (eds) Organising grammar: a Festschrift for Henk van Riemsdijk. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 538–53.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. and Roussou, A.. 2003. Syntactic change. A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues, C. 2002. Morphology and null subjects in Brazilian Portuguese. In Lightfoot, D. (ed.) Syntactic effects of morphological change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 160–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues, C. 2004. Impoverished morphology and A-movement out of Case-domains. PhD dissertation: University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Rögnvaldsson, E. and Thráinsson, H.. 1990. On Icelandic word order once more. In Maling, J. and Zaenen, A. (eds) Modern Icelandic syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rohrbacher, B. 1999. Morphology-driven syntax. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rosengren, I. 2002. EPP: a syntactic device in the service of semantics. Studia Linguistica 562: 145–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. 1967. Constraints on variables in Syntax. PhD dissertation: MIT.Google Scholar
Ross, J. 1969. Auxilaries as main verbs. In Todd, W. (ed.) Studies in philosophical linguistics. Evanston, Il: Great Expectations Press.Google Scholar
Ross, J. 1970. On declarative sentences. In Jacobs, R. and Rosenbaum, P. (eds) Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Rouveret, A. 1996. Bod in the present tense and in other tenses. In Borsley, R. and Roberts, I. (eds) The syntax of the Celtic languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 125–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, B. 1905. On denoting. Mind 14: 479–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabel, J. 2000. Expletives as features. In R. Billerey and B. Lillehaugen (eds) Proceedings of the 19th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics19: 401–14.
Saeed, J. 1996. Head-marking and pronominal clitics in Somali. In R. J. Hayward and I. M. Lewis (eds) Voice and power: The culture of language in north-east Africa: essays in honour of B. W. Andrzejewski, 37–49.
Saito, M. 2007. Notes on East Asian argument ellipsis. Unpublished ms: Nanzan University and University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, V. 1996. Constraints on subjects, an optimality theoretic analysis. PhD dissertation: Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, V. 2006. When right dislocation meets the left-periphery. Lingua 116: 836–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, E. 1921. Language. New York: Harcourt Brace and Co.Google Scholar
Schlegel, A. 1817. Über dramatische Kunst und Litteratur, Grundzüge einer Kultur- und Völkergeschichte Alteuropas, 2nd edition. 3 Volumes, Heidelberg: Mohr and Winter.Google Scholar
Schleicher, A. 1861–2. Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Kurzer Abriss einer Laut- und Formenlehre der indogermanischen Ursprache, des Altindischen, Altiranischen, Altgriechischen, Altitalischen, Altkeltischen, Altslawischen, Litauischen und Altdeutschen, 2 Volumes. Weimar: Böhlau.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. and Vikner, S.. 1996. The verb always leaves IP in V2 clauses. In Belletti, A. and Rizzi, L. (eds) Parameters and functional heads. New York: Oxford University Press, 11–62.Google Scholar
Sells, P. 1987. Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 445–80.Google Scholar
Sells, P. 2005. The peripherality of the Icelandic expletive. In Butt, M. and King, T. (eds) Proceedings of LFG-05. Stanford: CSLI Online Proceedings, 408–28.Google Scholar
Sheehan, M. 2006. The EPP and null subjects in Romance. PhD dissertation: Newcastle University.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, U. 1997. Clause structure and word order in Hebrew and Arabic: an essay in comparative Semitic syntax. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, U. 2009. Hebrew as a partial null-subject language. Studia Linguistica 63: 133–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shore, S. 1988. On the so-called Finnish passive. Word 39: 151–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. 1989. Verbal syntax and case in Icelandic. PhD dissertation: Lund University.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. 2000. The locus of Case and agreement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 65: 65–108.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. 2004a. Icelandic non-nominative subjects: facts and implications. In Bhaskararao, P. and Subbarao, K. (eds) Non-nominative subjects. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 137–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. 2004b. The syntax of Person, tense, and speech features. Rivista di Linguistica/Italian Journal of Linguistics 16: 219–51.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. 2006a. Agree in syntax, agreement in signs. In Boeckx, C. (ed.) Agreement systems. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 201–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. 2006b. PF is more ‘syntactic’ than often assumed. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 77: 101–28.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. In press. The case of PRO. To appear in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory.
Sigurðsson, H. and Egerland, V.. 2009. Impersonal null subjects in Icelandic and elsewhere. Studia Linguistica 63: 158–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. and Holmberg, A.. 2008. Icelandic dative intervention: person and number are separate probes. In d'Alessandro, R., Hrafnbjargarson, G. and Fischer, S. (eds) Agreement restrictions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 251–80.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. and Maling, J.. 2008. Argument drop and the Empty Left Edge Condition. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 81:1–27.Google Scholar
Sobin, N. 1987. The variable status of Comp-trace phenomena. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5: 33–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, A. 1991. Introduction to morphological theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sportiche, D. 1983. Structural invariance and symmetry in syntax. PhD dissertation: MIT.Google Scholar
Sportiche, D. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguisic Inquiry 19: 425–51.Google Scholar
Sportiche, D. 1999. Subject clitics in French and Romance, complex inversion and clitic doubling. In Johnson, K. and Roberts, I. (eds) Beyond principles and parameters: essays in memory of Osvaldo Jaeggli. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 189–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stepanović, S. 2003. Multiple wh-fronting in Serbo-Croatian matrix questions and the matrix sluicing construction. In Boeckx, C. and Grohmann, K. (eds) Multiple wh-fronting. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 255–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stowell, T. 1981. The origins of phrase structure. PhD dissertation: MIT.Google Scholar
Suñer, M. 1982. Syntax and semantics of Spanish presentational sentence-types. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Suñer, M. 2002. The lexical preverbal subject in a Romance null-subject language: where art thou? In Nuñez-Cedeño, R., Lopez, L. and Cameron, R. (eds) A Romance perspective on language knowledge and use. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 341–58.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. 2002a. Introduction. In Svenonius, P. (ed.) Subjects, expletives and the EPP. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–28.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. 2002b. Subject positions and the placement of adverbials. In Svenonius, P. (ed.) Subjects, expletives and the EPP. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 201–42.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. 2002c. Limits on P: filling in holes vs. falling in holes. Unpublished ms: University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. 2004. On the edge. In Adger, D., Cat, C. and Tsoulas, G. (eds) PeripheriesDordrecht: Kluwer, 261–87.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. 1983. The possessor that ran away from home. The Linguistic Review 3: 89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. 1994. The noun phrase. In Kiefer, F. and Kiss, K. (eds) The syntactic structure of Hungarian. San Diego: Academic Press, 179–274.Google Scholar
Szendrői, K. 2002. Stress-focus correspondence in Italian. In Beyssade, C., Bok-Bennema, R., Drijkoningen, F. and Monachesi, P. (eds) Proceedings of Going Romance 2000. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 287–305.
Tallerman, M. 1987. Mutation and the syntactic structure of modern colloquial Welsh. PhD dissertation: University of Hull.Google Scholar
Tallerman, M. 1998. The uniform case-licensing of subjects in Welsh. Linguistic Review 15: 69–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamburelli, M. 2006. Remarks on richness. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 439–55.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, T. 1978. On the NIC, vacuous application and the that-trace filter. Unpublished ms: MIT.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, T. 1979. The theoretical implications of a class of marked extractions. In Belletti, A., Brandi, L. and Rizzi, L. (eds) Theory of markedness in generative grammar. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore, 475–516.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, T. 2002. Que/qui alternation and the distribution of expletives. In Svenonius, P. (ed.) Subjects, expletives and the EPP. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 29–42.Google Scholar
Taylan, E. (ed.). 2001. The verb in Turkish. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Thráinsson, H. 1994. Icelandic. In König, E. and Auwera, J. (eds) The Germanic languages. London: Routledge, 142–89.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H. 2003. Syntactic variation, historical development and minimalism. In Hendrik, R. (ed.). Minimalist syntax. Oxford: Blackwell, 152–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thráinsson, H. 2007. The syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thráinsson, H., Petersen, H., Jacobsen, J. and Hansen, Z. (eds). 2004. Faroese. An overview and reference grammar. Tórshavn: Foroya Frodskaparfelag.
Timberlake, A. 1975. The nominative object in Finnish. Lingua 35: 201–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomioka, S. 2003. The semantics of Japanese null pronouns and its cross-linguistic implications. In Schwabe, K. and Winkler, S. (eds) The interfaces: deriving and interpreting omitted structures. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 321–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torrego, E. 1984. On inversion in Spanish and some of its effects, Linguistic Inquiry 15: 103–29.Google Scholar
Travis, L. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. PhD dissertation: MIT.Google Scholar
Travis, L. 2006. VP-, D-movement languages. In Zanuttini, R., Campos, H., Herburger, E. and Portner, P. (eds) Negation, tense and clausal architecture. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press Publishers, 127–50.Google Scholar
Trosterud, T. 1993. Anaphors and binding domains in Finnish. In Holmberg, A. and Nikanne, U. (eds) Case and other functional categories in Finnish syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 225–43.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J. 2007. Clarifying the notion ‘parameter’. Biolinguistics 1: 99–113.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A. 1989. Deriving syntactic representations in Finnish. PhD dissertation: University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A. 1993. The three structural cases in Finnish. In Holmberg, A. and Nikanne, U. (eds) Case and other functional categories in Finnish syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 129–59.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A. and Levy, Y.. 1999. Empty subjects in Finnish and Hebrew. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 613–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallduví, E. 1990. The informational component. PhD dissertation: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Vance, B. 1997. Syntactic change in medieval French. Verb-second and null-subjects. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanelli, L., Renzi, L. and Benincà, P.. 1985/2007. Typologie des pronoms sujets dans les langues romanes. Actes du XIIe Congrès des Linguistique et Philologie Romanes. Aix-en-Provence. Published in Italian translation as Vanelli, L., L. Renzi and P. Benincà. 1986. Tipologia dei pronomi soggetto nelle lingue romanze medievali. Quaderni Patavini di Linguistica5: 49–66; and reprinted in Benincà, P. (ed.). 1994. La variazione sintattica. Bologna: Il Mulino, 195–213. Published in English translation as Vanelli, L., L. Renzi and P. Benincà. 2007. A typology of Romance subject pronouns. In I. Roberts (ed.) Comparative grammar, Volume II: the null subject parameter. London: Routledge, 234–45.
Vangsnes, Ø. 2002. Icelandic expletive constructions and the distribution of subject types. In Svenonius, P. (ed.) Subjects, expletives and the EPP. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 43–70.Google Scholar
Vicente, L. 2005. Towards a unified theory of movement: an argument from Spanish predicate clefts. In M. Salzmann and L. Vicente (eds) Leiden Papers in Linguistics2: 43–67.
Vicente, L. 2006. The syntax of heads and phrases: a study of verb (phrase) fronting. PhD dissertation: Leiden.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 1995. Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 1997. V-to-I movement and inflection for person in all tenses. In Haegeman, L. (ed.) The new comparative syntax. London: Longman, 187–213.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 2001. Verb movement variation in Germanic and Optimality Theory. Habilitationschrift: Tübingen.Google Scholar
Vikner, S. 2005. Immobile complex verbs in Germanic. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 8,1/2: 83–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vikner, S. and Johnson, K.. 1994. The position of the verb in Scandinavian infinitives. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 53: 61–84.Google Scholar
Vinet, M-T. 1993. L'aspect et la copule vide dans la grammaire des titres. Langue française 100: 83–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wali, K. and Koul, O. N.. 1996. Kashmiri. A cognitive descriptive grammar. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wali, K. and Koul, O.. 1997. Kashmiri: a cognitive-descriptive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wallace, R. 2004. Sabellian Languages. In Woodward, R. (ed.) The Cambridge encyclopedia of the world's ancient languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 812–39.Google Scholar
Wanner, D. 1987. The development of Romance clitic pronouns from Latin to Old Romance. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, A. 1997. The structure of parametric change, and V-movement in the history of English. In Kemenade, A. and Vincent, N. (eds) Parameters of morphosyntactic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 380–94.Google Scholar
Wexler, K. 1998. Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: a new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua 106: 23–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, A. 2000. Null subjects in Middle English existentials. In Pintzuk, S., Tsoulas, G. and Warner, A. (eds) Diachronic syntax. Models and mechanisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 164–87.Google Scholar
Williams, E. 1994. Thematic structure in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Willis, D. 1998. Syntactic change in Welsh. A study of the loss of verb-second. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, S. 2004. Syntactic vs. post-syntactic movement. In S. Burelle and S. Somesfalean (eds) Proceedings of the 2003 Annual Meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association (CLA), 284–95.
Wurmbrand, S. 2006. Licensing Case. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 18,3: 175–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, A. 1994. La syntaxe des clitiques nominatifs en français standard et en français avancé. In Kleiber, G. and Roques, G. (eds) Travaux de linguistique et de philology. Strasbourg-Nancy: Klincksieck, 131–47.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M.-L. 1998. Prosody, focus and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zwart, C. J.-W. 1990. Clitics in Dutch: evidence for the position of Infl. Groningen University.Google Scholar
Zwart, C. J.-W. 1994. Dutch is head initial. The Linguistic Review 11: 377–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwart, C. J.-W. 1997. The morphosyntax of verb movement: a minimalist approach to the syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwart, C. J.-W. 2007. Uncharted territory? Towards a noncartographic account of Germanic syntax. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 45: 55–75.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. and Pullum, G.. 1983. Cliticisation vs. inflection: English n't. Language 59: 502–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org 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.

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.

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.

Available formats
×