Abbott, Barbara. 1976. Right node raising as a test for constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 7: 639–642.Google Scholar

Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Ackema, Peter, and Szendrői, Kriszta. 2002. Determiner sharing as an instance of dependent ellipsis. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5: 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Albert, Chris. 1993. Sluicing and weak islands. Unpublished manuscript, UC, Santa Cruz.

Asher, Nicholas. 1993. Reference to abstract objects in English. Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar

Asher, Nicholas, Daniel Hardt, and Joan Busquets. 1997. Discourse parallelism, scope, and ellipsis. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, ed. Lawson, Aaron, 19–36. The Chicago Linguistics Society, University of Chicago, IL.Google Scholar

Asher, Nicholas, Hardt, Daniel, and Busquets, Joan.2001. Discourse parallelism, ellipsis, and ambiguity. Journal of Semantics 18, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bach, Emmon. 1979. Control in Montague Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 10: 515–531.Google Scholar

Bach, Emmon.1980. In defense of passive. Linguistics and Philosophy 3: 297–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bach, Emmon, and Cooper, Robin. 1978. The NP-S analysis of relative clauses and compositional semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 2: 145–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bach, Emmon, and Barbara H. Partee. 1980. Anaphora and semantic structure. In Papers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora, eds. Kreiman, Jody and Ojeda, Almerindo E., 1–28. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Baker, C. L., and Brame, Michael. 1972. “Global rules”: a rejoinder. Language 48: 51–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baltin, Mark. 1987. Do antecedent-contained deletions exist?Linguistic Inquiry 18: 579–596.Google Scholar

Baltin, Mark.2003. The interaction of ellipsis and binding: implications for the sequencing of Principle A. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 215–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

den Besten, Hans, and Gert Webelhuth. 1990. Stranding. In Scrambling and barriers, eds. Grewendorf, Günther and Sternefeld, Wolfgang, 77–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bhatt, Rajesh, and Pancheva, Roumyana. 2004. Late merger of degree clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Booij, Geert. 1985. Coordination reduction in complex words: a case for prosodic phonology. In Advances in nonlinear phonology, eds. Hulst, Harry and Smith, N., 143–160. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.Google Scholar

Bouton, L. F. 1970. Antecedent contained pro-forms. In Chicago Linguistics Society, 154–167. The Chicago Linguistics Society: University of Chicago, IL.Google Scholar

Brame, Michael. 1983. Ungrammatical notes 4: smarter than me. Linguistic Analysis 12: 323–328.Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan. 1973. Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 275–343.Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan.1975. Comparative deletion and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Analysis 1: 25–74.Google Scholar

Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. QR obeys superiority: frozen scope and ACD. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 233–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Büring, Daniel. 2005. The syntax and semantics of binding theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Burton, Strang, and Grimshaw, Jane. 1992. Coordination and VP-internal subjects. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 305–312.Google Scholar

Camacho, José. 1996. The structure of NP coordination. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern California.

Carlson, Gregory N. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Chao, Wynn. 1987. On ellipsis. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Chierchia, Gennaro. 1995. Dynamics of meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1972a. Some empirical issues in the theory of transformational grammar. In The goals of linguistic theory, ed. Peters, Stanley, 63–130. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam.1972b. Spheres of influence in the age of imperialism; papers submitted to the Bertrand Russell centenary symposium, Linz, Austria, September 11th to 15th, 1972. Nottingham: Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation for The Spokesman.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam.1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam.1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam.1986a. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam.1986b. Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from building, volume XX, eds. Hale, Ken and Keyser, Jay, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam.1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam.2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In Step by step: essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik. 1993. Principles and parameter theory. In Syntax: an international handbook of contemporary research, eds. Stechow, Arnim, Sternefeld, W., and Vennemann, T., 506–569. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Chung, Sandra, Ladusaw, William A., and McCloskey, James. 1995. Sluicing and Logical Form. Natural Language Semantics 3: 239–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Collins, Chris. 1994. Economy of derivation and the generalized proper binding condition. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 45–62.Google Scholar

Cooper, Robin. 1979. The interpretation of pronouns. In Syntax and Semantics, volume X, Selections from the Third Groningen Round Table, eds. Heny, Frank and Schnelle, H., 61–92. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Coppock, Elizabeth. 2001. Gapping: in defense of deletion. In Chicago Linguistics Society, eds. Andronis, Mary, Ball, Christopher, Elston, Heidi, and Neuvel, Sylvain, volume XXXVII, 133–148. University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Cormack, A. 1984. VP anaphora: variables and scope. In Varieties of formal semantics, eds. Landman, F. and Veltman, F., 81–102. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Corver, Norbert. 1990. The syntax of left branch extractions. Doctoral Dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Brabant.

Culicover, Peter W., and Rochemont, Michael S.. 1990. Extraposition and the complement principle. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 23–47.Google Scholar

Dahl, Östen. 1974. How to open a sentence: abstraction in natural language. In Logical grammar reports, volume XII.

Dalrymple, Mary. 1991. Against reconstruction in ellipsis. Unpublished manuscript, Xerox-PARC and CSLI.

Dalrymple, Mary, Sheiber, Stuart M., and Pereira, Fernando C. N.. 1991. Ellipsis and higher-order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 399–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Diesing, Molly. 1992a. Bare plural subjects and the derivation of logical representations. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 353–380.Google Scholar

Diesing, Molly.1992b. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Dimitriadis, Alexis. 2001. Function domains in variable free semantics. In Proceedings of SALT 11, eds. Hastings, Rachel, Jackson, Brendan, and Zvolenszky, Zsofia, 134–151. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar

Doron, Edit. 1999. V-movement and VP ellipsis. In Studies in ellipsis and gapping, eds. Lappin, Shalom and Benmamoun, Elabbas, 124–140. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dougherty, Ray C. 1970. A grammar of coordinate conjoined structures, I. Language 46: 850–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dowty, David. 1982. Grammatical relations and Montague grammar. In The nature of syntactic representation, eds. Jacobson, Pauline and Pullum, Geoffrey K., 79–130. D. Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dowty, David 1988. “Type raising, functional composition, and non-constituent conjunction,” in Categorial Grammars and natural language structures, eds. Oerhle, R., Bach, E., and Wheeler, D.. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Drubig, Hans Bernhard. 1994. Island constraints and the syntactic nature of focus and association with focus. Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340 (working paper). University of Tübingen.

Eisenberg, Peter. 1973. A note on “Identity of constituents.” Linguistic Inquiry 4: 417–420.Google Scholar

Elbourne, Paul. 2001. E-type anaphora as NP deletion. Natural Language Semantics 9: 241–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Engdahl, Elisabet. 1986. Constituent questions. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Epstein, Samuel. 1995. A derivational approach to syntactic relations. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University.

Evans, Frederic. 1988. Binding into anaphoric verb phrases. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, 122–129. ESCOL Publications Committee: Linguistics Department, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar

Evans, Gareth. 1977. Pronouns, quantifiers, and relative clauses. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7: 467–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Evans, Gareth.1980. Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 337–362.Google Scholar

Farkas, Donka. 1981. Quantifier scope and syntactic islands. In Papers from the 17th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, eds. Hendrick, Randall, Masek, Carrie, and Miller, Mary Frances, 59–66. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago, IL.Google Scholar

Farkas, Donka, and Anastasia Giannakidou. 1995. How clause-bounded is the scope of universals? In Proceedings of SALT 6, ed. Gallway, T., 35–52. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar

Fiengo, Robert. 1980. Surface structure. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fiengo, Robert, and May, Robert. 1994. Indices and identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Fintel, Kai von, and Irene Heim. 2002. Notes on intensional semantics. URL www.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/summerschool2002/fintel.pdf, unpublished manuscript, MIT, Cambridge.

Fox, Danny. 1998. Locality in variable binding. In Is the best good enough?, eds. Barbosa, Pilar, Fox, Danny, Hagstrom, Paul, McGinnis, Martha, and Pesetsky, David, 129–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Fox, Danny.1999a. Focus, parallelism, and accommodation. In Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, eds. Matthews, T. and Strolovitch, Devon, 70–90. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar

Fox, Danny.1999b. Reconstruction, binding theory, and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 157–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fox, Danny.2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Fox, Danny.2002. Antecedent-contained deletion and the copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 63–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fox, Danny, and Lasnik, Howard. 2003. Successive-cyclic movement and island repair: the difference between Sluicing and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fox, Danny, and Jon Nissenbaum. 1999. Extraposition and scope: a case for overt QR. In Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 18, eds. Bird, Sonya, Carnie, Andrew, Haugen, Jason D., and Norquest, Peter, 132–144. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

Frampton, John, and Gutmann, Sam. 1999. Cyclic computation: A computationally efficient Minimalist syntax. Syntax 2: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frege, Gottlob. 1879. Begriffsschrift. eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens. Halle, Germany: Neubert.Google Scholar

Gärtner, Hans-Martin. 1997. Generalized transformations and beyond. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Frankfurt/Main.

Gawron, Jean Mark, and Peters, Stanley. 1990. Anaphora and quantification in Situation Semantics. Stanford University: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar

Geach, P. 1972. A program for syntax. In Semantics of natural language, eds. Davidson, Donald and Harman, Gilbert H., 483–497. Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1998. Polarity sensitivity as (non)veridicality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Giannakidou, Anastasia.2001. The meaning of free choice. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 659–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldberg, Lotus Madelyn. 2005. Verb-stranding VP ellipsis: a cross-linguistic study. Doctoral Dissertation, McGill University, Montreal.

Goodall, Grant, 1987. Parallel structures in syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Grimshaw, Jane. 1991. Extended projection. Unpublished manuscript, Brandeis University.

Grinder, John, and Postal, Paul M.. 1971. Missing antecedents. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 269–312.Google Scholar

Grodzinsky, Yosef, and Reinhart, Tanya. 1993. The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 69–102.Google Scholar

Groenendijk, J., and M. Stokhof. 1983. Interrogative quantifiers and skolem functions. In Connectedness in sentence, discourse and text, eds. Ehlich, K. and Riemsdijk, Henk, 71–110. Tilburg University.Google Scholar

Hackl, Martin. 2000. Comparative quantifiers. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Haïk, Isabelle. 1984. Indirect binding. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 185–224.Google Scholar

Haïk, Isabelle.1985. The syntax of operators. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.

Haïk, Isabelle.1987. Bound VPs that need to be. Linguistics and Philosophy 10: 503–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hankamer, Jorge. 1973a. Unacceptable ambiguity. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 17–68.Google Scholar

Hankamer, Jorge.1973b. Why there are two than's in English. In Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 9, 179–191. The Chicago Linguistics Society, University of Chicago, IL.

Hankamer, Jorge.1978. On the nontransformational derivation of some null VP anaphors. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 66–74.Google Scholar

Hankamer, Jorge.1979. Deletion in coordinate structures. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar

Hankamer, Jorge, and Sag, Ivan. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7: 391–428.Google Scholar

Hankamer, Jorge, and Ivan Sag.1977. Syntactically vs. pragmatically controlled anaphora. In Studies in language variation, eds. Fasold, R. and Shuy, R., 121–135. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Hardt, Daniel. 1992a. VP ellipsis and semantic identity. In Proceedings of SALT 2, 145–162. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar

Hardt, Daniel.1992b. VP ellipsis and semantic identity. In Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, eds. Berman, Steve and Hestvik, Arild. Stuttgart.Google Scholar

Hardt, Daniel.1993. Verb phrase ellipsis: Form, meaning and processing. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

Hardt, Daniel.1999. Dynamic interpretation of verb phrase ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 185–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harris, Zellig. 1957. Co-occurrence and transformation in linguistic structure. Language 33: 283–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hartmann, Katharina. 1998. Right node raising and gapping. Doctoral Dissertation, Goethe-Universität zu Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt.

Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite Noun Phrases. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Heim, Irene.1983. On the projection problem for presuppositions. In Proceedings of WCCFL 2, ed. Flickinger, Daniel P., 114–125. Stanford University, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Heim, Irene.1985. Notes on comparatives and related matters. Unpublished manuscript, University of Texas-Austin.

Heim, Irene.1990. E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 13: 137–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heim, Irene.1993. Anaphora and semantic interpretation: a reinterpretation of Reinhart's approach. SfS-Report 7–93, Universität Tübingen, Germany.

Heim, Irene.1994. Puzzling reflexive pronouns in de se reports. Unpublished Handout, March, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

Heim, Irene.1997. Predicates or formulas? evidence from ellipsis. In Proceedings of SALT VII, eds. Lawson, Aaron and Cho, Enn, 197–221. Cornell University: CLC Publications.Google Scholar

Heim, Irene.2000. Degree operators and scope. In Proceedings of SALT X, eds. Jackson, Brendan and Matthews, Tanya, 40–64. Cornell University: CLC Publications.Google Scholar

Heim, Irene.2001. Degree operators and scope. In Audiatur vox sapientiae. A festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, eds. Fery, Caroline and Sternefeld, Wolfgang, 214–239. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar

Heim, Irene, and Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Hellan, Lars. 1981. Towards an integrated theory of comparatives. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar

Heycock, Caroline. 1995. Asymmetries in reconstruction. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 547–570.Google Scholar

Heycock, Caroline, and Kroch, Anthony. 1994. Verb movement and coordination in a dynamic theory of licensing. The Linguistic Review 11: 257–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Higginbotham, James. 1983. Logical form, binding, and nominals. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 395–420.Google Scholar

Higginbotham, James.1985. On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 547–594.Google Scholar

Hirschberg, Julia, and Ward, Gregory. 1991. Accent and bound anaphora. Cognitive Linguistics 2: 101–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hirschbühler, Paul. 1978. The syntax and semantics of wh-constructions. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Hirschbühler, Paul.1982. VP deletion and across-the-board quantifier scope. In NELS, eds. Pustejovsky, James and Sells, Peter, 132–139. University of Massachusetts, Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar

Hobbs, Jerry, and Kehler, Andrew. 1997. A theory of parallelism and the case of VP Ellipsis. In Proceedings of the ACL 35, 394–401. Madrid, Spain.Google Scholar

Hoeksema, Jack. 1984. To be continued: the story of the comparative. Journal of Semantics 3: 93–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Höhle, Tilman N. 1990. Assumption about asymmetric coordination in German. In Grammar in progress: GLOW essays for Henk van Riemsdijk, eds. Mascaró, Joan and Nespor, Marina, 221–235. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Höhle, Tilman N.1991. On reconstruction and coordination. In Representation and derivation in the theory of grammar, eds. Haider, Hubert and Netter, Klaus, volume XXII, 139–198. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hoji, Hajime, and Teruhiko Fukaya. 1999. Stripping and sluicing in Japanese and some implications. In Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, eds. Bird, S., Carnie, A., Haugen, J., and Norquest, P., 145–158. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

Hornstein, Norbert. 1995. Logical Form: from GB to Minimalism. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Huang, C.-T. James. 1993. Reconstruction and the structure of VP: some theoretical consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 103–138.Google Scholar

Hudson, Richard A. 1976. Conjunction reduction, gapping and right-node raising. Language 52: 535–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jacobson, Pauline. 1977. The syntax of crossing coreference sentences. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

Jacobson, Pauline.1982. On the syntax and semantics of multiple relatives in English. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Jacobson, Pauline.1987. Phrase structure, grammatical relations, and discontinuous constituents. In Syntax and semantics, volume XX: Discontinuous constituency, eds. Huck, Geoffrey and Ojeda, Almerindo E., 27–69. New York Academic Press, Inc.Google Scholar

Jacobson, Pauline.1992a. Antecedent contained deletion in a variable-free semantics. In SALT 2, eds. Barker, Chris and Dowty, David, 193–213. Linguistics Department, Ohio State University.

Jacobson, Pauline.1992b. Flexible categorical grammars: questions and prospects. In Formal grammar: Theory and implementation, ed. Levine, Robert D., 129–167. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Jacobson, Pauline.1994. Binding Connectivity in Copular Sentences. In Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, eds. Harvey, M. and Santelmann, L.. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar

Jacobson, Pauline.1998. ACE and pied-piping: evidence for a variable-free semantics. In Proceedings of SALT 8, eds. Strolovitch, Devon and Lawson, Aaron, 74–91. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar

Jacobson, Pauline.1999. Towards a variable-free semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 117–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jacobson, Pauline.2000a. Paycheck pronouns, Bach–Peters sentences, and variable-free semantics. Natural Language Semantics 8: 77–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jacobson, Pauline 2000b. Paychecks, stress, and variable free semantics. In Proceedings of SALT X, eds. Matthews, T. and Jackson, B., 65–82. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar

Jacobson, Pauline.2002. The (dis)organization of the grammar: 25 years. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 601–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jacobson, Pauline.2003. Binding without pronouns (and pronouns without binding). In Binding and resource sensitivity, eds. Kruiff, G.-J. and Oehrle, Richard, 57–96. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jacobson, Pauline.2004. Kennedy's puzzle: What I'm named or who I am? In Proceedings of SALT 14, ed. Young, Robert B., 145–162. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, Cornell University.Google Scholar

Jayaseelan, K. A. 1990. Incomplete VP deletion and Gapping. Linguistic Analysis 20: 64–81.Google Scholar

Johnson, Kyle. 2001. What VP ellipsis can do, and what it can't, but not why. In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, eds. Baltin, Mark and Collins, Chris, 439–479. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Johnson, Kyle.2003. In search of the English middle field. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Johnson, Kyle.2004. How to be quiet. In Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 39.

Kadmon, Nirit. 1987. On unique and non-unique reference and asymmetric quantification. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kayne, Richard S. 1998. Overt vs. covert movement. Syntax 1: 128–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kehler, Andrew, and Shieber, Stuart. 1997. Anaphoric dependencies in ellipsis. Computational Linguistics 23: 457–466.Google Scholar

Kennedy, Christopher. 1994. Argument contained ellipsis. Linguistics Research Center Report LRC-94-03, University of California, Santa Cruz.

Kennedy, Christopher.1995. An indexical account of certain ambiguities. In Proceedings of ESCOL 95, 103–115. Ohio State University: ESCOL Publications Committee, Linguistics Department.Google Scholar

Kennedy, Christopher.1997a. Antecedent contained deletion and the syntax of quantification. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 662–688.Google Scholar

Kennedy, Christopher.1997b. Projecting the adjective: the syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.

Kennedy, Chris, and Merchant, Jason. 2000. Attributive comparative deletion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 89–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kennedy, Christopher, and Jeffrey Lidz. 2001. A (covert) long distance anaphor in English. In Proceedings of the 20th West Coast Conference in Formal Linguistics, eds. Megerdoomian, Karine and Anne Bar-el, Leora, 318–331. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. 1986. Subjects in Japanese and English. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Kitagawa, Yoshihisa.1991. Copying identity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 497–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kitahara, Hisatsugu. 1999. Eliminating * as a feature (of traces). In Working minimalism, eds. Epstein, Samuel and Hornstein, Norbert, 77–93. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Klein, E. 1986. VP ellipsis in DR theory. In Studies in DRT and the theory of generalized quantifiers, eds. Groenendijk, J., Jongh, , and Stokhof, , 161–187. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Koopman, Hilda Judith, and Sportiche, Dominique. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua 85: 211–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Koopman, Hilda Judith, and Szabolcsi, Anna. 2000. Verbal complexes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Koster, Jan. 1978. Locality principles in syntax. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.Google Scholar

Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. The representation of focus. In Semantics: an international handbook of contemporary research, eds. Stechow, Arnim and Wunderlich, Dieter, 825–834. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Kratzer, Angelika.1998. More structural analogies between pronouns and tense. In Proceedings of SALT VIII, eds. Strolovitch, Devon and Lawson, Aaron, 92–110. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred. 1999. Additive particles under stress. In Proceedings of SALT 8, eds. Strolovitch, Devon and Lawson, Aaron, 111–128. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar

Kuroda, S.-Y. 1988. Whether we agree or not. Linguisticae Investigationnes 12: 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lakoff, George. 1971. On generative semantics. In Semantics, eds. Steinberg, D. and Jakobovits, L., 232–296. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lakoff, George.1972. The arbitrary basis of transformational grammar. Language 48: 76–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lappin, Shalom. 1996. The interpretation of ellipsis. In The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. Lappin, Shalom, 145–175. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Larson, Richard K. 1985. On the syntax of disjunction scope. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 217–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Larson, Richard K., and May, Robert. 1990. Antecedent containment or vacuous movement: reply to Baltin. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 103–122.Google Scholar

Lasnik, Howard. 1976. Remarks on coreference. Linguistic Analysis 2: 1–22.Google Scholar

Lasnik, Howard.1995. Verbal morphology: Syntactic structures meets the minimalist program. In Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory, eds. Campos, Hector and Kempchinsky, Paula, 251–275. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Lasnik, Howard.1999a. A note on pseudogapping. In Minimalist analysis, ed. Lasnik, Howard, 151–174. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Lasnik, Howard.1999b. On feature strength: three minimalist approaches to overt movement. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 197–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lasnik, Howard.1999c. Pseudogapping puzzles. In Fragments: Studies in ellipsis and gapping, eds. Lappin, Shlom and Benmamoun, Elabbas, 141–174. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lasnik, Howard.2001. When can you save a structure by destroying it? In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 31, eds. Kim, Minjoo and Strauss, Uri, 301–320. Georgetown University: GLSA.Google Scholar

Lasnik, Howard, and Saito, Mamoru. 1984. On the nature of proper government. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 235–290.Google Scholar

Lasnik, Howard, and Saito, Mamoru.1992. Move α. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Lebeaux, David. 1988. Language acquisition and the form of the grammar. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Lebeaux, David.1990. Relative clauses, licensing, and the nature of the derivation. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 20, eds. Carter, Juli, Rose-Marie, Dechaine, Philip, Bill, and Sherer, Tim, 318–332. University of Massachusetts at Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar

Lechner, Winfried. 1998. Comparative deletion. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Lechner, Winfried.1999. Comparatives and DP-Structure. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Lechner, Winfried.2000. Conjunction reduction in subordinate structures. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 30, eds. Hirotani, Masako, Coetzee, Andries, Hall, Nancy, and Kim, Ji-yung, 455–468. Rutgers University: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar

Lechner, Winfried.2001. Reduced and phrasal comparatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 683–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lechner, Winfried.2004. Ellipsis in Comparatives. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levin, Beth, and Rappaport, Malka. 1986. The formation of adjectival passives. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 623–661.Google Scholar

Levin, Lori. 1982. Sluicing: A lexical interpretation procedure. In The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. Bresnan, Joan, 590–654. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Levin, Nancy. 1986. Main-verb ellipsis in spoken English. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar

Levine, Robert D. 1985. Right Node (non)-Raising. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 492–497.Google Scholar

Lin, Jo-Wang. 1996. Polarity licensing and wh-phrase quantification in Chinese. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Lin, Vivian. 2002. Coordination and sharing at the interfaces. Doctoral Dissertation, Linguistics Department, MIT.

Lobeck, Anne. 1991. The phrase structure of ellipsis. In Perspectives on phrase structure, ed. Rothstein, Susan, 81–103. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Lobeck, Anne.1995. Ellipsis: Functional heads, licensing and identification. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

López, Luis. 1994. The syntactic licensing of VP-ellipsis: a comparative study of Spanish and English. In Issues and theory in Romance linguistics: selected papers from the linguistic symposium on Romance languages XXIII, ed. Mazzola, Michael L., 333–354. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

López, Luis.1999. VP-ellipsis in Spanish and English and the features of Aux. Probus 11: 263–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

López, Luis, and Susanne Winkler. 2003. Variation at the syntax-semantics interface: evidence from gapping. In The interfaces: Deriving and interpreting omitted structures, eds. Schwabe, Kerstin and Winkler, Susanne, 227–248. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

May, Robert. 1977. The grammar of quantification. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

May, Robert.1985. Logical form: its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

McCawley, James D. 1970. Where do noun phrases come from? In Readings in English transformational grammar, eds. Jacobs, R. A. and Rosenbaum, Peter S., 166–183. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Company.Google Scholar

McCawley, James D. 1982. Parentheticals and discontinuous constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 91–106.Google Scholar

McCawley, James D. 1998. The syntactic phenomena of English. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar

McCloskey, James. 1991. Clause structure, ellipsis and proper government in Irish. Lingua 85: 259–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Merchant, Jason. 1999. The syntax of silence: sluicing, islands, and identity in ellipsis. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.

Merchant, Jason.2000. Islands and LF-movement in Greek sluicing. Journal of Greek Linguistics 1: 39–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Merchant, Jason.2001. The syntax of silence: sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Merchant, Jason.2002. Swiping in German. In Studies in comparative Germanic syntax, eds. Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter and Abraham, Werner, 295–321. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Merchant, Jason.2005. On the role of unpronounced syntactic structures. Talk given at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Moltmann, Friederike. 1992. Coordination and comparatives. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.

Montague, Richard. 1974. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In Formal philosophy: Selected papers of Richard Montague, ed. Thomason, Richmond H., 247–270. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Muadz, H. 1991. Coordinate structures: a planar representation. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Müller, Gereon. 1996. A constraint on remnant movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 355–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Müller, Gereon, and Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 1993. Improper movement and unambiguous binding. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 461–508.Google Scholar

Muskens, Reinhard. 1996. Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 143–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Napoli, Donna Jo. 1983. Comparative ellipsis: a phrase structure analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 675–694.Google Scholar

Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1998. “Multiple sluicing” in Japanese and the functional nature of wh-phrases. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7: 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nunes, Jairo. 1995. The copy theory of movement and linearization of chains in the Minimalist Program. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maryland.

Oehrle, Richard T. 1991. Categorial frameworks, coordination, and extraction. In The Proceedings of the Ninth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Halpern, Aaron L., 411–426. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar

Partee, Barbara Hall. 1975. Montague grammar and transformational grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 6: 203–300.Google Scholar

Partee, Barbara Hall.1976. Some transformational extensions of Montague grammar. In Montague grammar, ed. Partee, Barbara Hall, 51–76. Academic Press, Inc.Google Scholar

Partee, Barbara Hall, and Mats Rooth. 1983. Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In Meaning, use and interpretation of language, eds. Bäuerle, R., Schwarze, C., and Stechow, Arnim, 362–383. De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Percus, Orin. 2000. Constraints on some other variables in syntax. Natural Language Semantics 8: 173–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Perlmutter, David. 1971. Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Perlmutter, David, and Ross, John Robert. 1970. Relative clauses with split antecedent. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 350.Google Scholar

Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In The representation of (in)definiteness, eds. Reuland, Eric J. and Meulen, Alice G. B., 98–129. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Pesetsky, David.2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Phillips, Colin. 1996. Order and structure. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

Pinkham, Jessie E. 1982. The formation of comparative clauses in English and French. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Pollard, Carl. 1984. Generalized phrase structure grammar. Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University.

Pollard, Carl Jesse, and Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar

Postal, Paul M. 1969a. Anaphoric islands. In Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting Chicago Linguistics Society, eds. Binnick, Robert I., Davison, Alice, Green, Georgia M., and Jerry, L. Morgan, 205–239. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Postal, Paul M.1969b. On so-called “pronouns” in English. In Modern studies in English, eds. Reibel, D. and Schane, Sandford, 201–224. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Postal, Paul M. 1971. Cross-over phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Postal, Paul M. 1974. On raising. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Postal, Paul M. 1993. Some defective paradigms. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 347–364.Google Scholar

Postal, Paul M. 1998. Three investigations of extraction. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Potts, Christopher. 1999. Vehicle change and anti-pronominal contexts. University of California, Santa Cruz.

Prüst, Hub, Scha, Remko, and Berg, Martin. 1994. Discourse grammar and verb phrase anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 17: 261–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pullum, Geoffrey, and Zwicky, Arnold. 1986. Phonological resolution of syntactic feature conflict. Language 62: 751–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reinhart, Tanya. 1976. The syntactic domain of anaphora. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Reinhart, Tanya.1983a. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Reinhart, Tanya.1983b. Coreference and bound anaphora: a restatement of the anaphora questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 6: 47–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reinhart, Tanya, and Reuland, Eric. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 657–720.Google Scholar

Richards, Norvin. 1998. In full pursuit of the unspeakable. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, eds. Tamanji, Pius N. and Kusumoto, Kiyomi, 153–168. University of Toronto: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar

Riemsdijk, Henk. 1982. A case study in syntactic markedness. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.Google Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Roberts, Craige. 1991. Distributivity and reciprocal distributivity. In Proceedings of the First Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, eds. Moore, Steven and Wyner, Adam Zachary, 209–230. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar

Romero, Maribel. 1998. Focus and reconstruction effects in wh-phrases. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Romero, Maribel.2000. Antecedentless sluiced wh phrases and islands. In Ellipsis in conjunction, eds. Schwabe, Kerstin and Zhang, Ning, 195–220. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rooth, Mats E. 1981. A comparison of three theories of verb phrase ellipsis. In University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics, eds. Chao, Wynn and Wheeler, Dierdre, 212–244. GLSA.Google Scholar

Rooth, Mats E.1985. Association with focus. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Rooth, Mats E. 1992a. Ellipsis redundancy and reduction redundancy. In Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, eds. Berman, Steve and Hestvik, Arild. Stuttgart.Google Scholar

Rooth, Mats E. 1992b. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 117–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rooth, Mats E.1996. Focus. In The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. Lappin, Shalom, 271–297. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Ross, John Robert.1969. Guess who? In Chicago Linguistics Society, eds. Binnick, Robert I., Davison, Alice, Green, Georgia M., and Morgan, Jerry L., 252–286. Chicago, IL: The Chicago Linguistics Society, University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Ross, John Robert.1970. Gapping and the order of constituents. In Progress in linguistics, eds. Bierwisch, Manfred and Heidolph, Karl E., 249–259. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rullmann, Hotze. 1995. Maximality in the semantics of wh-constructions. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Russell, Bertrand. 1905. On denoting. Mind 14: 479–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Safir, Ken. 1986. Relative clauses in a theory of binding and levels. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 663–689.Google Scholar

Sag, Ivan. 1976. Deletion and logical form. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Sag, Ivan.1980. Deletion and logical form. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar

Sag, Ivan, and Hankamer, Jorge. 1984. Toward a theory of anaphoric processing. Linguistics and Philosophy 7: 325–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sauerland, Uli. 1996. Guess how? In Proceedings of ConSoLE, 297–311. Leiden, The Netherlands: SOLE, University of Leiden/Luch.Google Scholar

Sauerland, Uli.1998. The meaning of chains. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

Sauerland, Uli.1999. Why variables? In North East Linguistics Society, eds. Pius, Tamanji, Hirotani, Masako, and Hall, Nancy, 323–338. University of Delaware: GLSA.Google Scholar

Sauerland, Uli.2000. The content of pronouns: Evidence from focus. In Proceedings of SALT X, eds. Matthews, Tanya and Jackson, Brendan, 167–184. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar

Sauerland, Uli.2003. A new semantics for number. In Proceedings of SALT 13, 258–275. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar

Sauerland, Uli.2004. The interpretation of traces. Natural Language Semantics 12: 63–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schachter, Paul. 1977. Constraints on coordination. Language 53: 86–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schuyler, Tamara. 2001. Wh-movement out of the site of VP ellipsis. In Syntax at Santa Cruz, ed. Mac Bhloscaidh, Séamas, 1–20. UC, Santa Cruz: Linguistics Department.Google Scholar

Schwarz, Bernhard. 1999. On the syntax of either … or. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 339–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schwarz, Bernhard.2000. Topics in ellipsis. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. Givenness, avoid F and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7: 141–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schwarzschild, Roger, and Wilkinson, Karina. 2002. Quantifiers in comparatives: a semantics of degree based on intervals. Natural Language Semantics 10: 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sharvit, Yael. 1998. Possessive wh-expressions and reconstruction. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, eds. Tamanji, Pius N. and Kusumoto, Kiyomi, 409–424. University of Toronto: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar

Sharvit, Yael.1999. Functional relative clauses. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 447–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Simpson, Andrew. 2000. Wh-movement and the theory of feature-checking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Soames, Scott. 1989. Presupposition. In Handbook of philosophical logic, eds. Gabbay, Dov and Guenther, Franz, volume IV, 553–616. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sproat, Richard. 1988. On anaphoric islandhood. In Theoretical morphology, eds. Hammond, Michael and Noonan, Michael, 291–304. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.Google Scholar

Stechow, Arnim. 1984. Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics 3: 1–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Steedman, Mark. 1987. Combinatory grammars and parasitic gaps. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5: 403–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Steedman, Mark.1996. Surface structure and interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Stockwell, Robert P., Schachter, Paul, and Partee, Barbara Hall. 1968. Integration of transformational theories of English syntax. Los Angeles: UCLA.Google Scholar

Takahashi, Shoichi. 2004. Pseudogapping and cyclic linearization. In Proceedings of the thirty-fourth meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, eds. Moulton, Keir and Wolf, Matthew, volume XXXIV, 571–585. University of Massachusetts, Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar

Takahashi, Shoichi.2006a. Decompositionality and identity. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Takahashi, Shoichi.2006b. More than two quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics 14: 57–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Takahashi, Shoichi, and Danny Fox. 2006. MaxElide and the re-binding problem. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, eds. Georgala, Effi and Howell, Jonathan, volume XV, 223–240. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar

Takano, Yuji. 1996. Movement and parametric variation. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Irvine.

Takano, Yuji.2000. Illicit remnant movement: an argument for feature-driven movement. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tancredi, Christopher. 1992. Deletion, deaccenting and presupposition. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.

Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1979. The theoretical interpretation of a class of marked extractions. In Theory of markedness in generative grammar, eds. Belletti, A., Brandi, L., and Rizzi, R., 475–516. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.Google Scholar

Tiedeman, Robyne. 1995. Some remarks on antecedent contained deletion. In Minimalism and Linguistic Theory, eds. Haraguchi, Shosuke and Funaki, Michio, 67–103. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar

Tomioka, Satoshi. 1997. Focussing effects in VP ellipsis and NP interpretation. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Tomioka, Satoshi.1999. A sloppy identity puzzle. Natural Language Semantics 7: 217–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tomioka, Satoshi.2001. A certain scope asymmetry in VP ellipsis contexts. In Linguistic form and its computation, eds. Roher, Christian, Rossdentscher, Antje, and Kamp, Hans, 183–203. Stanford University: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Tomioka, Satoshi.2004. Another sloppy identity puzzle. In Generative Grammar in a Broader Perspective: Proceedings of the Fourth GLOW in Asia, ed. Yoon, Han-Jin, 383–404. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Generative Linguistics of the Old World.Google Scholar

Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Phonological phrases: their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.

Wasow, Thomas. 1972. Anaphoric relations in English. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

Webber, Bonnie. 1978. A formal approach to discourse anaphora. Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University.

Wesche, B. 1995. Symmetric coordination. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wescoat, Michael. 1989. Sloppy readings with embedded antecedents. Manuscript, Stanford University.

Wiese, R. 1993. Tilgung prosodischer konstituenten. Paper presented at 15th annual meeting of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft. Mainz, Germany: University of Mainz.

Wilder, Chris. 1995. Antecedent containment and ellipsis. In FAS Papers in Linguistics, volume IV, 132–165.

Wilder, Chris.1997. Some properties of ellipsis in coordination. In Studies on universal grammar and typological variation, eds. Alexiadou, Artemis and Hall, T., 59–107. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Williams, Edwin. 1974. Rule ordering in syntax. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Williams, Edwin.1977. Discourse and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 101–139.Google Scholar

Williams, Edwin.1978. Across-the-board rule application. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 31–43.Google Scholar

Williams, Edwin.1986. A reassignment of the functions of LF. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 264–300.Google Scholar

Williams, Edwin.1990. The ATB-theory of parasitic gaps. The Linguistic Review 6: 265–279.Google Scholar

Wiltschko, Martina. 1997. Superiority in German. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, eds. Curtis, Emily, Lyle, James, and Webster, Gabriel, 431–445. University of Washington: Stanford Linguistics Association.Google Scholar

Wiltschko, Martina.1998. On the syntax and semantics of (relative) pronouns and determiners. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2: 143–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Winkler, Susanne. 1996. Focus and secondary predication. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Wurmbrand, Susi. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 1997. Morphosyntax of verb movement: A minimalist approach to the syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Abbott, Barbara. 1976. Right node raising as a test for constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 7: 639–642.Google Scholar

Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Ackema, Peter, and Szendrői, Kriszta. 2002. Determiner sharing as an instance of dependent ellipsis. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5: 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Albert, Chris. 1993. Sluicing and weak islands. Unpublished manuscript, UC, Santa Cruz.

Asher, Nicholas. 1993. Reference to abstract objects in English. Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar

Asher, Nicholas, Daniel Hardt, and Joan Busquets. 1997. Discourse parallelism, scope, and ellipsis. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, ed. Lawson, Aaron, 19–36. The Chicago Linguistics Society, University of Chicago, IL.Google Scholar

Asher, Nicholas, Hardt, Daniel, and Busquets, Joan.2001. Discourse parallelism, ellipsis, and ambiguity. Journal of Semantics 18, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bach, Emmon. 1979. Control in Montague Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 10: 515–531.Google Scholar

Bach, Emmon.1980. In defense of passive. Linguistics and Philosophy 3: 297–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bach, Emmon, and Cooper, Robin. 1978. The NP-S analysis of relative clauses and compositional semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 2: 145–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bach, Emmon, and Barbara H. Partee. 1980. Anaphora and semantic structure. In Papers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora, eds. Kreiman, Jody and Ojeda, Almerindo E., 1–28. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Baker, C. L., and Brame, Michael. 1972. “Global rules”: a rejoinder. Language 48: 51–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baltin, Mark. 1987. Do antecedent-contained deletions exist?Linguistic Inquiry 18: 579–596.Google Scholar

Baltin, Mark.2003. The interaction of ellipsis and binding: implications for the sequencing of Principle A. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 215–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

den Besten, Hans, and Gert Webelhuth. 1990. Stranding. In Scrambling and barriers, eds. Grewendorf, Günther and Sternefeld, Wolfgang, 77–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bhatt, Rajesh, and Pancheva, Roumyana. 2004. Late merger of degree clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Booij, Geert. 1985. Coordination reduction in complex words: a case for prosodic phonology. In Advances in nonlinear phonology, eds. Hulst, Harry and Smith, N., 143–160. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.Google Scholar

Bouton, L. F. 1970. Antecedent contained pro-forms. In Chicago Linguistics Society, 154–167. The Chicago Linguistics Society: University of Chicago, IL.Google Scholar

Brame, Michael. 1983. Ungrammatical notes 4: smarter than me. Linguistic Analysis 12: 323–328.Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan. 1973. Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 275–343.Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan.1975. Comparative deletion and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Analysis 1: 25–74.Google Scholar

Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. QR obeys superiority: frozen scope and ACD. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 233–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Büring, Daniel. 2005. The syntax and semantics of binding theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Burton, Strang, and Grimshaw, Jane. 1992. Coordination and VP-internal subjects. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 305–312.Google Scholar

Camacho, José. 1996. The structure of NP coordination. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern California.

Carlson, Gregory N. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Chao, Wynn. 1987. On ellipsis. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Chierchia, Gennaro. 1995. Dynamics of meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1972a. Some empirical issues in the theory of transformational grammar. In The goals of linguistic theory, ed. Peters, Stanley, 63–130. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam.1972b. Spheres of influence in the age of imperialism; papers submitted to the Bertrand Russell centenary symposium, Linz, Austria, September 11th to 15th, 1972. Nottingham: Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation for The Spokesman.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam.1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam.1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam.1986a. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam.1986b. Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from building, volume XX, eds. Hale, Ken and Keyser, Jay, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam.1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam.2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In Step by step: essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik. 1993. Principles and parameter theory. In Syntax: an international handbook of contemporary research, eds. Stechow, Arnim, Sternefeld, W., and Vennemann, T., 506–569. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Chung, Sandra, Ladusaw, William A., and McCloskey, James. 1995. Sluicing and Logical Form. Natural Language Semantics 3: 239–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Collins, Chris. 1994. Economy of derivation and the generalized proper binding condition. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 45–62.Google Scholar

Cooper, Robin. 1979. The interpretation of pronouns. In Syntax and Semantics, volume X, Selections from the Third Groningen Round Table, eds. Heny, Frank and Schnelle, H., 61–92. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Coppock, Elizabeth. 2001. Gapping: in defense of deletion. In Chicago Linguistics Society, eds. Andronis, Mary, Ball, Christopher, Elston, Heidi, and Neuvel, Sylvain, volume XXXVII, 133–148. University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Cormack, A. 1984. VP anaphora: variables and scope. In Varieties of formal semantics, eds. Landman, F. and Veltman, F., 81–102. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Corver, Norbert. 1990. The syntax of left branch extractions. Doctoral Dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Brabant.

Culicover, Peter W., and Rochemont, Michael S.. 1990. Extraposition and the complement principle. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 23–47.Google Scholar

Dahl, Östen. 1974. How to open a sentence: abstraction in natural language. In Logical grammar reports, volume XII.

Dalrymple, Mary. 1991. Against reconstruction in ellipsis. Unpublished manuscript, Xerox-PARC and CSLI.

Dalrymple, Mary, Sheiber, Stuart M., and Pereira, Fernando C. N.. 1991. Ellipsis and higher-order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 399–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Diesing, Molly. 1992a. Bare plural subjects and the derivation of logical representations. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 353–380.Google Scholar

Diesing, Molly.1992b. Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Dimitriadis, Alexis. 2001. Function domains in variable free semantics. In Proceedings of SALT 11, eds. Hastings, Rachel, Jackson, Brendan, and Zvolenszky, Zsofia, 134–151. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar

Doron, Edit. 1999. V-movement and VP ellipsis. In Studies in ellipsis and gapping, eds. Lappin, Shalom and Benmamoun, Elabbas, 124–140. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dougherty, Ray C. 1970. A grammar of coordinate conjoined structures, I. Language 46: 850–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dowty, David. 1982. Grammatical relations and Montague grammar. In The nature of syntactic representation, eds. Jacobson, Pauline and Pullum, Geoffrey K., 79–130. D. Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dowty, David 1988. “Type raising, functional composition, and non-constituent conjunction,” in Categorial Grammars and natural language structures, eds. Oerhle, R., Bach, E., and Wheeler, D.. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Drubig, Hans Bernhard. 1994. Island constraints and the syntactic nature of focus and association with focus. Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340 (working paper). University of Tübingen.

Eisenberg, Peter. 1973. A note on “Identity of constituents.” Linguistic Inquiry 4: 417–420.Google Scholar

Elbourne, Paul. 2001. E-type anaphora as NP deletion. Natural Language Semantics 9: 241–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Engdahl, Elisabet. 1986. Constituent questions. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Epstein, Samuel. 1995. A derivational approach to syntactic relations. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University.

Evans, Frederic. 1988. Binding into anaphoric verb phrases. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, 122–129. ESCOL Publications Committee: Linguistics Department, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar

Evans, Gareth. 1977. Pronouns, quantifiers, and relative clauses. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7: 467–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Evans, Gareth.1980. Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 337–362.Google Scholar

Farkas, Donka. 1981. Quantifier scope and syntactic islands. In Papers from the 17th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, eds. Hendrick, Randall, Masek, Carrie, and Miller, Mary Frances, 59–66. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago, IL.Google Scholar

Farkas, Donka, and Anastasia Giannakidou. 1995. How clause-bounded is the scope of universals? In Proceedings of SALT 6, ed. Gallway, T., 35–52. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar

Fiengo, Robert. 1980. Surface structure. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fiengo, Robert, and May, Robert. 1994. Indices and identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Fintel, Kai von, and Irene Heim. 2002. Notes on intensional semantics. URL www.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/summerschool2002/fintel.pdf, unpublished manuscript, MIT, Cambridge.

Fox, Danny. 1998. Locality in variable binding. In Is the best good enough?, eds. Barbosa, Pilar, Fox, Danny, Hagstrom, Paul, McGinnis, Martha, and Pesetsky, David, 129–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Fox, Danny.1999a. Focus, parallelism, and accommodation. In Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, eds. Matthews, T. and Strolovitch, Devon, 70–90. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar

Fox, Danny.1999b. Reconstruction, binding theory, and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 157–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fox, Danny.2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Fox, Danny.2002. Antecedent-contained deletion and the copy theory of movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 63–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fox, Danny, and Lasnik, Howard. 2003. Successive-cyclic movement and island repair: the difference between Sluicing and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fox, Danny, and Jon Nissenbaum. 1999. Extraposition and scope: a case for overt QR. In Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 18, eds. Bird, Sonya, Carnie, Andrew, Haugen, Jason D., and Norquest, Peter, 132–144. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

Frampton, John, and Gutmann, Sam. 1999. Cyclic computation: A computationally efficient Minimalist syntax. Syntax 2: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frege, Gottlob. 1879. Begriffsschrift. eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens. Halle, Germany: Neubert.Google Scholar

Gärtner, Hans-Martin. 1997. Generalized transformations and beyond. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Frankfurt/Main.

Gawron, Jean Mark, and Peters, Stanley. 1990. Anaphora and quantification in Situation Semantics. Stanford University: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar

Geach, P. 1972. A program for syntax. In Semantics of natural language, eds. Davidson, Donald and Harman, Gilbert H., 483–497. Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1998. Polarity sensitivity as (non)veridicality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Giannakidou, Anastasia.2001. The meaning of free choice. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 659–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldberg, Lotus Madelyn. 2005. Verb-stranding VP ellipsis: a cross-linguistic study. Doctoral Dissertation, McGill University, Montreal.

Goodall, Grant, 1987. Parallel structures in syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Grimshaw, Jane. 1991. Extended projection. Unpublished manuscript, Brandeis University.

Grinder, John, and Postal, Paul M.. 1971. Missing antecedents. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 269–312.Google Scholar

Grodzinsky, Yosef, and Reinhart, Tanya. 1993. The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 69–102.Google Scholar

Groenendijk, J., and M. Stokhof. 1983. Interrogative quantifiers and skolem functions. In Connectedness in sentence, discourse and text, eds. Ehlich, K. and Riemsdijk, Henk, 71–110. Tilburg University.Google Scholar

Hackl, Martin. 2000. Comparative quantifiers. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Haïk, Isabelle. 1984. Indirect binding. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 185–224.Google Scholar

Haïk, Isabelle.1985. The syntax of operators. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.

Haïk, Isabelle.1987. Bound VPs that need to be. Linguistics and Philosophy 10: 503–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hankamer, Jorge. 1973a. Unacceptable ambiguity. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 17–68.Google Scholar

Hankamer, Jorge.1973b. Why there are two than's in English. In Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 9, 179–191. The Chicago Linguistics Society, University of Chicago, IL.

Hankamer, Jorge.1978. On the nontransformational derivation of some null VP anaphors. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 66–74.Google Scholar

Hankamer, Jorge.1979. Deletion in coordinate structures. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar

Hankamer, Jorge, and Sag, Ivan. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7: 391–428.Google Scholar

Hankamer, Jorge, and Ivan Sag.1977. Syntactically vs. pragmatically controlled anaphora. In Studies in language variation, eds. Fasold, R. and Shuy, R., 121–135. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Hardt, Daniel. 1992a. VP ellipsis and semantic identity. In Proceedings of SALT 2, 145–162. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar

Hardt, Daniel.1992b. VP ellipsis and semantic identity. In Proceedings of the Stuttgart Ellipsis Workshop, eds. Berman, Steve and Hestvik, Arild. Stuttgart.Google Scholar

Hardt, Daniel.1993. Verb phrase ellipsis: Form, meaning and processing. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

Hardt, Daniel.1999. Dynamic interpretation of verb phrase ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 185–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harris, Zellig. 1957. Co-occurrence and transformation in linguistic structure. Language 33: 283–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hartmann, Katharina. 1998. Right node raising and gapping. Doctoral Dissertation, Goethe-Universität zu Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt.

Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite Noun Phrases. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Heim, Irene.1983. On the projection problem for presuppositions. In Proceedings of WCCFL 2, ed. Flickinger, Daniel P., 114–125. Stanford University, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Heim, Irene.1985. Notes on comparatives and related matters. Unpublished manuscript, University of Texas-Austin.

Heim, Irene.1990. E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 13: 137–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heim, Irene.1993. Anaphora and semantic interpretation: a reinterpretation of Reinhart's approach. SfS-Report 7–93, Universität Tübingen, Germany.

Heim, Irene.1994. Puzzling reflexive pronouns in de se reports. Unpublished Handout, March, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

Heim, Irene.1997. Predicates or formulas? evidence from ellipsis. In Proceedings of SALT VII, eds. Lawson, Aaron and Cho, Enn, 197–221. Cornell University: CLC Publications.Google Scholar

Heim, Irene.2000. Degree operators and scope. In Proceedings of SALT X, eds. Jackson, Brendan and Matthews, Tanya, 40–64. Cornell University: CLC Publications.Google Scholar

Heim, Irene.2001. Degree operators and scope. In Audiatur vox sapientiae. A festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, eds. Fery, Caroline and Sternefeld, Wolfgang, 214–239. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar

Heim, Irene, and Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Hellan, Lars. 1981. Towards an integrated theory of comparatives. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar

Heycock, Caroline. 1995. Asymmetries in reconstruction. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 547–570.Google Scholar

Heycock, Caroline, and Kroch, Anthony. 1994. Verb movement and coordination in a dynamic theory of licensing. The Linguistic Review 11: 257–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Higginbotham, James. 1983. Logical form, binding, and nominals. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 395–420.Google Scholar

Higginbotham, James.1985. On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 547–594.Google Scholar

Hirschberg, Julia, and Ward, Gregory. 1991. Accent and bound anaphora. Cognitive Linguistics 2: 101–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hirschbühler, Paul. 1978. The syntax and semantics of wh-constructions. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Hirschbühler, Paul.1982. VP deletion and across-the-board quantifier scope. In NELS, eds. Pustejovsky, James and Sells, Peter, 132–139. University of Massachusetts, Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar

Hobbs, Jerry, and Kehler, Andrew. 1997. A theory of parallelism and the case of VP Ellipsis. In Proceedings of the ACL 35, 394–401. Madrid, Spain.Google Scholar

Hoeksema, Jack. 1984. To be continued: the story of the comparative. Journal of Semantics 3: 93–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Höhle, Tilman N. 1990. Assumption about asymmetric coordination in German. In Grammar in progress: GLOW essays for Henk van Riemsdijk, eds. Mascaró, Joan and Nespor, Marina, 221–235. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Höhle, Tilman N.1991. On reconstruction and coordination. In Representation and derivation in the theory of grammar, eds. Haider, Hubert and Netter, Klaus, volume XXII, 139–198. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hoji, Hajime, and Teruhiko Fukaya. 1999. Stripping and sluicing in Japanese and some implications. In Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, eds. Bird, S., Carnie, A., Haugen, J., and Norquest, P., 145–158. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

Hornstein, Norbert. 1995. Logical Form: from GB to Minimalism. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Huang, C.-T. James. 1993. Reconstruction and the structure of VP: some theoretical consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 103–138.Google Scholar

Hudson, Richard A. 1976. Conjunction reduction, gapping and right-node raising. Language 52: 535–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jacobson, Pauline. 1977. The syntax of crossing coreference sentences. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

Jacobson, Pauline.1982. On the syntax and semantics of multiple relatives in English. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Jacobson, Pauline.1987. Phrase structure, grammatical relations, and discontinuous constituents. In Syntax and semantics, volume XX: Discontinuous constituency, eds. Huck, Geoffrey and Ojeda, Almerindo E., 27–69. New York Academic Press, Inc.Google Scholar

Jacobson, Pauline.1992a. Antecedent contained deletion in a variable-free semantics. In SALT 2, eds. Barker, Chris and Dowty, David, 193–213. Linguistics Department, Ohio State University.

Jacobson, Pauline.1992b. Flexible categorical grammars: questions and prospects. In Formal grammar: Theory and implementation, ed. Levine, Robert D., 129–167. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Jacobson, Pauline.1994. Binding Connectivity in Copular Sentences. In Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, eds. Harvey, M. and Santelmann, L.. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar

Jacobson, Pauline.1998. ACE and pied-piping: evidence for a variable-free semantics. In Proceedings of SALT 8, eds. Strolovitch, Devon and Lawson, Aaron, 74–91. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar

Jacobson, Pauline.1999. Towards a variable-free semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 117–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jacobson, Pauline.2000a. Paycheck pronouns, Bach–Peters sentences, and variable-free semantics. Natural Language Semantics 8: 77–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jacobson, Pauline 2000b. Paychecks, stress, and variable free semantics. In Proceedings of SALT X, eds. Matthews, T. and Jackson, B., 65–82. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar

Jacobson, Pauline.2002. The (dis)organization of the grammar: 25 years. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 601–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jacobson, Pauline.2003. Binding without pronouns (and pronouns without binding). In Binding and resource sensitivity, eds. Kruiff, G.-J. and Oehrle, Richard, 57–96. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jacobson, Pauline.2004. Kennedy's puzzle: What I'm named or who I am? In Proceedings of SALT 14, ed. Young, Robert B., 145–162. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, Cornell University.Google Scholar

Jayaseelan, K. A. 1990. Incomplete VP deletion and Gapping. Linguistic Analysis 20: 64–81.Google Scholar

Johnson, Kyle. 2001. What VP ellipsis can do, and what it can't, but not why. In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, eds. Baltin, Mark and Collins, Chris, 439–479. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Johnson, Kyle.2003. In search of the English middle field. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Johnson, Kyle.2004. How to be quiet. In Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 39.

Kadmon, Nirit. 1987. On unique and non-unique reference and asymmetric quantification. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kayne, Richard S. 1998. Overt vs. covert movement. Syntax 1: 128–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kehler, Andrew, and Shieber, Stuart. 1997. Anaphoric dependencies in ellipsis. Computational Linguistics 23: 457–466.Google Scholar

Kennedy, Christopher. 1994. Argument contained ellipsis. Linguistics Research Center Report LRC-94-03, University of California, Santa Cruz.

Kennedy, Christopher.1995. An indexical account of certain ambiguities. In Proceedings of ESCOL 95, 103–115. Ohio State University: ESCOL Publications Committee, Linguistics Department.Google Scholar

Kennedy, Christopher.1997a. Antecedent contained deletion and the syntax of quantification. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 662–688.Google Scholar

Kennedy, Christopher.1997b. Projecting the adjective: the syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.

Kennedy, Chris, and Merchant, Jason. 2000. Attributive comparative deletion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 89–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kennedy, Christopher, and Jeffrey Lidz. 2001. A (covert) long distance anaphor in English. In Proceedings of the 20th West Coast Conference in Formal Linguistics, eds. Megerdoomian, Karine and Anne Bar-el, Leora, 318–331. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. 1986. Subjects in Japanese and English. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Kitagawa, Yoshihisa.1991. Copying identity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 497–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kitahara, Hisatsugu. 1999. Eliminating * as a feature (of traces). In Working minimalism, eds. Epstein, Samuel and Hornstein, Norbert, 77–93. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Klein, E. 1986. VP ellipsis in DR theory. In Studies in DRT and the theory of generalized quantifiers, eds. Groenendijk, J., Jongh, , and Stokhof, , 161–187. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Koopman, Hilda Judith, and Sportiche, Dominique. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua 85: 211–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Koopman, Hilda Judith, and Szabolcsi, Anna. 2000. Verbal complexes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Koster, Jan. 1978. Locality principles in syntax. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.Google Scholar

Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. The representation of focus. In Semantics: an international handbook of contemporary research, eds. Stechow, Arnim and Wunderlich, Dieter, 825–834. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Kratzer, Angelika.1998. More structural analogies between pronouns and tense. In Proceedings of SALT VIII, eds. Strolovitch, Devon and Lawson, Aaron, 92–110. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred. 1999. Additive particles under stress. In Proceedings of SALT 8, eds. Strolovitch, Devon and Lawson, Aaron, 111–128. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar

Kuroda, S.-Y. 1988. Whether we agree or not. Linguisticae Investigationnes 12: 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lakoff, George. 1971. On generative semantics. In Semantics, eds. Steinberg, D. and Jakobovits, L., 232–296. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lakoff, George.1972. The arbitrary basis of transformational grammar. Language 48: 76–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lappin, Shalom. 1996. The interpretation of ellipsis. In The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, ed. Lappin, Shalom, 145–175. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Larson, Richard K. 1985. On the syntax of disjunction scope. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 217–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Larson, Richard K., and May, Robert. 1990. Antecedent containment or vacuous movement: reply to Baltin. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 103–122.Google Scholar

Lasnik, Howard. 1976. Remarks on coreference. Linguistic Analysis 2: 1–22.Google Scholar

Lasnik, Howard.1995. Verbal morphology: Syntactic structures meets the minimalist program. In Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory, eds. Campos, Hector and Kempchinsky, Paula, 251–275. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Lasnik, Howard.1999a. A note on pseudogapping. In Minimalist analysis, ed. Lasnik, Howard, 151–174. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Lasnik, Howard.1999b. On feature strength: three minimalist approaches to overt movement. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 197–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lasnik, Howard.1999c. Pseudogapping puzzles. In Fragments: Studies in ellipsis and gapping, eds. Lappin, Shlom and Benmamoun, Elabbas, 141–174. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lasnik, Howard.2001. When can you save a structure by destroying it? In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 31, eds. Kim, Minjoo and Strauss, Uri, 301–320. Georgetown University: GLSA.Google Scholar

Lasnik, Howard, and Saito, Mamoru. 1984. On the nature of proper government. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 235–290.Google Scholar

Lasnik, Howard, and Saito, Mamoru.1992. Move α. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Lebeaux, David. 1988. Language acquisition and the form of the grammar. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Lebeaux, David.1990. Relative clauses, licensing, and the nature of the derivation. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 20, eds. Carter, Juli, Rose-Marie, Dechaine, Philip, Bill, and Sherer, Tim, 318–332. University of Massachusetts at Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar

Lechner, Winfried. 1998. Comparative deletion. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Lechner, Winfried.1999. Comparatives and DP-Structure. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Lechner, Winfried.2000. Conjunction reduction in subordinate structures. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 30, eds. Hirotani, Masako, Coetzee, Andries, Hall, Nancy, and Kim, Ji-yung, 455–468. Rutgers University: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar

Lechner, Winfried.2001. Reduced and phrasal comparatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 683–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lechner, Winfried.2004. Ellipsis in Comparatives. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levin, Beth, and Rappaport, Malka. 1986. The formation of adjectival passives. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 623–661.Google Scholar

Levin, Lori. 1982. Sluicing: A lexical interpretation procedure. In The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. Bresnan, Joan, 590–654. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Levin, Nancy. 1986. Main-verb ellipsis in spoken English. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar

Levine, Robert D. 1985. Right Node (non)-Raising. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 492–497.Google Scholar

Lin, Jo-Wang. 1996. Polarity licensing and wh-phrase quantification in Chinese. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Lin, Vivian. 2002. Coordination and sharing at the interfaces. Doctoral Dissertation, Linguistics Department, MIT.

Lobeck, Anne. 1991. The phrase structure of ellipsis. In Perspectives on phrase structure, ed. Rothstein, Susan, 81–103. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Lobeck, Anne.1995. Ellipsis: Functional heads, licensing and identification. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

López, Luis. 1994. The syntactic licensing of VP-ellipsis: a comparative study of Spanish and English. In Issues and theory in Romance linguistics: selected papers from the linguistic symposium on Romance languages XXIII, ed. Mazzola, Michael L., 333–354. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

López, Luis.1999. VP-ellipsis in Spanish and English and the features of Aux. Probus 11: 263–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

López, Luis, and Susanne Winkler. 2003. Variation at the syntax-semantics interface: evidence from gapping. In The interfaces: Deriving and interpreting omitted structures, eds. Schwabe, Kerstin and Winkler, Susanne, 227–248. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

May, Robert. 1977. The grammar of quantification. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

May, Robert.1985. Logical form: its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

McCawley, James D. 1970. Where do noun phrases come from? In Readings in English transformational grammar, eds. Jacobs, R. A. and Rosenbaum, Peter S., 166–183. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Company.Google Scholar

McCawley, James D. 1982. Parentheticals and discontinuous constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 91–106.Google Scholar

McCawley, James D. 1998. The syntactic phenomena of English. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar

McCloskey, James. 1991. Clause structure, ellipsis and proper government in Irish. Lingua 85: 259–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Merchant, Jason. 1999. The syntax of silence: sluicing, islands, and identity in ellipsis. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.

Merchant, Jason.2000. Islands and LF-movement in Greek sluicing. Journal of Greek Linguistics 1: 39–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Merchant, Jason.2001. The syntax of silence: sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Merchant, Jason.2002. Swiping in German. In Studies in comparative Germanic syntax, eds. Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter and Abraham, Werner, 295–321. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Merchant, Jason.2005. On the role of unpronounced syntactic structures. Talk given at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Moltmann, Friederike. 1992. Coordination and comparatives. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.

Montague, Richard. 1974. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In Formal philosophy: Selected papers of Richard Montague, ed. Thomason, Richmond H., 247–270. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Muadz, H. 1991. Coordinate structures: a planar representation. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Müller, Gereon. 1996. A constraint on remnant movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 355–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Müller, Gereon, and Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 1993. Improper movement and unambiguous binding. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 461–508.Google Scholar

Muskens, Reinhard. 1996. Combining Montague semantics and discourse representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 143–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Napoli, Donna Jo. 1983. Comparative ellipsis: a phrase structure analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 675–694.Google Scholar

Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1998. “Multiple sluicing” in Japanese and the functional nature of wh-phrases. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7: 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nunes, Jairo. 1995. The copy theory of movement and linearization of chains in the Minimalist Program. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maryland.

Oehrle, Richard T. 1991. Categorial frameworks, coordination, and extraction. In The Proceedings of the Ninth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Halpern, Aaron L., 411–426. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar

Partee, Barbara Hall. 1975. Montague grammar and transformational grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 6: 203–300.Google Scholar

Partee, Barbara Hall.1976. Some transformational extensions of Montague grammar. In Montague grammar, ed. Partee, Barbara Hall, 51–76. Academic Press, Inc.Google Scholar

Partee, Barbara Hall, and Mats Rooth. 1983. Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In Meaning, use and interpretation of language, eds. Bäuerle, R., Schwarze, C., and Stechow, Arnim, 362–383. De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Percus, Orin. 2000. Constraints on some other variables in syntax. Natural Language Semantics 8: 173–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Perlmutter, David. 1971. Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Perlmutter, David, and Ross, John Robert. 1970. Relative clauses with split antecedent. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 350.Google Scholar

Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In The representation of (in)definiteness, eds. Reuland, Eric J. and Meulen, Alice G. B., 98–129. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Pesetsky, David.2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Phillips, Colin. 1996. Order and structure. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

Pinkham, Jessie E. 1982. The formation of comparative clauses in English and French. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Pollard, Carl. 1984. Generalized phrase structure grammar. Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University.

Pollard, Carl Jesse, and Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar

Postal, Paul M. 1969a. Anaphoric islands. In Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting Chicago Linguistics Society, eds. Binnick, Robert I., Davison, Alice, Green, Georgia M., and Jerry, L. Morgan, 205–239. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Postal, Paul M.1969b. On so-called “pronouns” in English. In Modern studies in English, eds. Reibel, D. and Schane, Sandford, 201–224. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Postal, Paul M. 1971. Cross-over phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Postal, Paul M. 1974. On raising. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Postal, Paul M. 1993. Some defective paradigms. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 347–364.Google Scholar

Postal, Paul M. 1998. Three investigations of extraction. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Potts, Christopher. 1999. Vehicle change and anti-pronominal contexts. University of California, Santa Cruz.

Prüst, Hub, Scha, Remko, and Berg, Martin. 1994. Discourse grammar and verb phrase anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 17: 261–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pullum, Geoffrey, and Zwicky, Arnold. 1986. Phonological resolution of syntactic feature conflict. Language 62: 751–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reinhart, Tanya. 1976. The syntactic domain of anaphora. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Reinhart, Tanya.1983a. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Reinhart, Tanya.1983b. Coreference and bound anaphora: a restatement of the anaphora questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 6: 47–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reinhart, Tanya, and Reuland, Eric. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 657–720.Google Scholar

Richards, Norvin. 1998. In full pursuit of the unspeakable. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, eds. Tamanji, Pius N. and Kusumoto, Kiyomi, 153–168. University of Toronto: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar

Riemsdijk, Henk. 1982. A case study in syntactic markedness. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.Google Scholar