Acton, Eric K. 2014. Standard Change and the Finnish Partitive-Accusative Object Distinction. In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 10, ed. Christopher Piñón, 1–18.Google Scholar

Adger, D. and Ramchand, G. 2003. Predication and Equation. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 325–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adler, Julia. 2011. Dative Alternations in German. Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar

Aissen, Judith. 1999. Markedness and Subject Choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17(4): 673–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 435–483.Google Scholar

Amritavalli, R. 2004. Experiencer Datives in Kannada. Typological Studies in Language 60: 1–24.Google Scholar

Arad, Maya. 1998. VP-Structure and the Syntax–Lexicon Interface. Doctoral dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar

Aristar, Anthony R. 1996. The Relationship Between Dative and Locative: Kuryìowicz’s Argument from a Typological Perspective. Diachronica 13: 207–224.Google Scholar

Aristar, Anthony R. 1997. Marking and Hierarchy: Types and the Grammaticalization of Case-Markers. Studies in Language 21: 313–368.Google Scholar

Asher, R. E. and Kumari, T. C.. 1997. Malayalam. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Babby, Leonard H. 1973. The Deep Structure of Adjectives and Participles in Russian. Language 49: 349–360.Google Scholar

Babby, Leonard H. 1978. Negation and Subject Case Selection in Existential Sentences: Evidence from Russian. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Babby, Leonard H. 1980. Existential Sentences and Negation in Russian. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar

Babby, Leonard H. 1987. Case, Prequantifiers, and Discontinuous Agreement in Russian Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5(1): 91–138.Google Scholar

Babby, Leonard H. 2001. The Genitive of Negation: A Unified Analysis. In Franks, Steven, King, Tracy Holloway and Yadroff, Michael, eds., Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Bloomington Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar

Babby, Leonard H. 2009. The Syntax of Argument Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Babyonyshev, Maria. 2003. The Extended Projection Principle and the Genitive of Negation Construction. In Brown, Sue and Przepiorkowski, Adam, eds., Negation in Slavic. Bloomington: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar

Babyonyshev, Maria and Brun, Dina. 2002. Specificity Matters: A New Look at the New Genitive of Negation. In Toman, J, ed., Proceedings of Tenth Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Second Ann Arbor Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar

Baerman, Matthew. 2008. Case Syncretism. In Malchukov, Andrej and Spencer, Andrew, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 219–230.Google Scholar

Bailyn, John F. 1994. The Syntax and Semantics of Russian Long and Short Adjectives: An X’-Theoretic Account. In Toman, J, ed., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. The Ann Arbor Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar

Bailyn, John F. 1997. Genitive of Negation Is Obligatory. In Browne, W, Dornisch, E, Kondrashova, N and Zec, D, eds., Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Cornell Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar

Bailyn, John F. 2001. The Syntax of Slavic Predicate Case. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 21: 1–23.Google Scholar

Bailyn, John F. 2004. The Case of Q. In Arnaudova, O et al., eds., Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 12. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. www.ic.sunysb.edu/Clubs/nels/jbailyn/JFBailyn.html.Google Scholar

Bailyn, John F. and Citko, B. 1999. Case and Agreement in Slavic Predicates. In Dziwirek, K et al., eds., Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. The Seattle Meeting, Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 17–37.Google Scholar

Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Baker, Mark. 2015. Case: Its Principles and Its Parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, Mark and Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2017. On Inherent and Dependent Theories of Ergative Case. In Coon, Jessica, Massam, Diane and Travis, Lisa Demena, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Balasch, Sonia. 2011. Factors Determining Spanish Differential Object Marking within Its Domain of Variation. In Michnowicz, Jim and Dodsworth, Robin, eds., Selected Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A. and Boneh, Nora. 2014. Modern Hebrew Non-Core Dative in Their Context. Lǝšonénu 74: 461–495.Google Scholar

Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A. and Boneh, Nora. 2015a. On Discursive Datives in Modern Hebrew. In Catalonia-Israel Symposium on Lexical Semantics and Grammatical Structure in Event Conceptualization. The Linguistics Department at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar

Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A. and Boneh, Nora. 2015b. Decomposing Affectedness: Truth-Conditional Non-Core Datives in Modern Hebrew. In Melnik, Nurit, ed., Proceedings of IATL 30.Google Scholar

Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2011. The Rise of Dative Substitution in the History of Icelandic: A Diachronic Construction Grammar Account. Lingua 121: 60–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barðdal, Jóhanna and Chelliah, Shobhana L.. 2009. The Role of Semantic, Pragmatic, and Discourse Factors in the Development of Case. Edited volume. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bayer, J. 2004. Non-Nominative Subjects in Comparison. In P. Bhaskararao and K. V. Subbaraou, eds., Non-Nominative Subjects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, Vol. 1. pp. 49–76.Google Scholar

Beavers, John. 2008. Scalar Complexity and the Structure of Events. In Dölling, Johannes, Heyde-Zybatow, Tatjana and Schäfer, Martin, eds., Event Structures in Linguistic Form and Interpretation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 245–265.Google Scholar

Beavers, John. 2011. On Affectedness. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 335–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beghelli, F. and Stowell, T. 1997. Distributivity and Negation: The Syntax of each and every. In Szabolcsi, A, ed., Ways of Scope Taking. London: Kluwer, pp. 71–107.Google Scholar

Belletti, Adriana. 1988. The Case of Unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry 19(1): 1–34.Google Scholar

Bhat, D. N. S. and Ningomba, M. S.. 1997. Manipuri Grammar. Munich: Lincon.Google Scholar

Bickel, B. 2004. The Syntax of Experiencers in the Himalayas. In P. Bhaskararao and K. V. Subbaraou, eds., Non-Nominative Subjects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Vol. 1, pp. 77–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bierwisch, M. 1988. On the Grammar of Local Prepositions. In Bierwisch, M, Motsch, W and Zimmermann, I, eds., Syntax, Semantik, und Lexikon: Rudolf Rçñi.ka zum 65. Geburtstag. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, pp. 1–65.Google Scholar

Bittner, M. 1994. Case, Scope, and Binding. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Blake, Barry. 1994. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Blake, Barry. 2001. Case, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Błaszczak, Joanna. 2007. The NOM/GEN “Subject” Puzzle in Polish. In Kosta, Peter and Schurcks, Lilia, eds., Linguistic Investigations into Formal Description of Slavic Languages. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 127–145.Google Scholar

Bleam, Tonia. 2005. The Role of Semantic Type on Differential Object Marking. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 19: 3–27.Google Scholar

Blutner, R. 2000. Some Aspects of Optimality in Natural Language Interpretation. Journal of Semantics 17: 189–216.Google Scholar

Boneh, Nora and Nash, Léa. 2010. A Higher Applicative: Evidence from French. In Proceedings of IATL 25. http://linguistics.huji.ac.il/IATL/25/Boneh_Nash.pdf.Google Scholar

Borschev, Vladimir and Partee, Barbara H.. 1998. Formal and Lexical Semantics and the Genitive in Negated Existential Sentences in Russian. In Boskovic, Z, Franks, S and Snyder, W, eds., Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 6. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar

Borschev, Vladimir and Partee, Barbara H.. 2002a. The Russian Genitive of Negation in Existential Sentences: The Role of Theme-Rheme Structure Reconsidered. In Hajieova, E and Sgall, P, eds., Travaux de Circle Linguistique de Prague (novelle serie) 4. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Borschev, Vladimir and Partee, Barbara H.. 2002b. Genitive of Negation and Scope of Negation in Russian Existential Sentences. In Toman, J, ed., Proceedings of Tenth Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Second Ann Arbor Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar

Borschev, Vladimir, Paducheva, Elena V., Partee, Barbara H., Testelets, Yakov G. and Yanovich, Igor. 2008. Russian Genitives, Non-Referentiality, and the Property-Type Hypothesis. In Antonenko, A et al., eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Stony Brook Meeting (FASL 16), Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publishers.Google Scholar

Bossong, Georg. 1985. Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

Bouchard, Denis. 1995. The Semantics of Syntax: A Minimalist Approach to Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Bowe, Heather. 1990. Categories, Constituents and Constituent Order in Pitjantjatjara. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Brecht, Richard D. and Levine, James S. 1986. Case and Meaning. In Brecht, R. D. and Levine, J. S., eds., Case in Slavic. USA: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar

Brown, Sue. 1999. The Syntax of Negation in Russian: A Minimalist Approach. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Butt, Miriam. 2006a. Theories of Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Butt, Miriam. 2006b.The Dative-Ergative Connection. In P. Cabredo-Hofherr and O. Bonami, eds., Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics. The Hague: Thesus.Google Scholar

Butt, Miriam. 2012. From Spatial to Subject Marker. Handout of talk given at the Workshop on Non-Canonically Case-Marked Subjects, Iceland, June 2012.Google Scholar

Butt, Miriam and King, Tracy Holloway. 1991. Semantic Case in Urdu. In Lisa Dobrin, Lynn Nichols, and Rosa M. Rodriguez, eds., Papers from the 27th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 31–45.Google Scholar

Butt, Miriam and King, Tracy Holloway. 2005. The Status of Case. In Dayal, Veneeta and Mahajan, Anoop, eds., Clause Structure in South Asian Languages. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar

Caha, Pavel. 2009. The Nanosyntax of Case. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar

Carlson, Gregory N. 1977. Reference to Kinds in English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar

Chelliah, S. L. 1997. A Grammar of Meithei. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Chesterman, Andrew. 1991. On Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1985. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar

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

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam and Lasnik, Howard. 1977. Filters and Control. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 425–504.Google Scholar

Citko, Barbara. 2008. Small Clauses Reconsidered: Not So Small and Not All Alike. Lingua 118: 261–295.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1979. Definite and Animate Direct Objects: A Natural Class. Linguistica Silesiana 3: 13–21.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 2004. Oblique-Case Subjects in Tsez. In Peri Bhaskararao and Karumuri Venkata Subbarao, eds., Non-Nominative Subjects. Amsterdam:John Benjamins, Vol. 1, pp. 113–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bernard, Comrie and Corbett, G. G.. 2002. The Slavonic Languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. and Polinsky, M. 1998. The Great Daghestan Case Hoax. In Anna Siewierska and Jae Jung Song, eds., Case, Typology, and Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 95–114.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard, Khalilov, Madzhid and Khalilova, Zaira. 2015. A Grammar of Bezhta. Leipzig-Makhachkala: ALEPH.Google Scholar

Copley, Bridget and Harley, Heidi. 2015. A Force-Theoretic Framework for Event Structure. Linguistics and Philosophy 38(2): 103–158.Google Scholar

Crisma, P. and Longobardi, G. 2018. A Unified Theory of Case Form and Case Meaning. Talk given at the workshop On the Place of Case in Grammar (PlaCiG), Rethymno, Greece.Google Scholar

Croft, William. 1988. Agreement vs. Case Marking and Direct Objects. In Barlow, M and Ferguson, C, eds., Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 159–179.Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Csirmaz, Aniko. 2006. Interface Interactions – Aspect and Case. Handout of talk given at the 8th Seoul International Conference on Generative Grammar.Google Scholar

Cuervo, M. C. 2003. Datives at Large. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Dabrowska, Eva. 1994. Radial Categories in Grammar: The Polish Instrumental Case. Linguistica Silesiana 15: 83–94.Google Scholar

Dabrowska, Eva. 1997. Cognitive Semantics and the Polish Dative (Cognitive Linguistics Research 9). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Dahl, Osten. 1971. The Genitive and the Subjunctive in Russian. Scando-Slavica 17: 135–139. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar

Dambriunas, Leonardas. 1980. Introduction to Modern Lithuanian. New York: Franciscan Fathers.Google Scholar

Danon, G. 2001. Syntactic Definiteness in the Grammar of Modern Hebrew. Linguistics 39(6): 1071–1116.Google Scholar

Danon, G. 2002. The Hebrew Object Marker and Semantic Type. In Proceedings of IATL 17.Google Scholar

Davison, Alice. 2004. Structural Case, Lexical Case and the Verbal Projection. In Dayal, Veneeta and Mahajan, Anoop, eds., Clause Structure in South Asian Languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 199–225.Google Scholar

De Jong, J.J. 1996. The Case of Bound Pronouns in Peripheral Romance. Groningen Dissertations in Linguistics 16.Google Scholar

Deal, Amy Rose. 2017. External Possession and Possessor Raising. In Everaert, Martin and van Riemsdijk, Henk C., eds., The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd edition. John Wiley & Sons. DOI:10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom047.Google Scholar

Depraetere, Ilse. 1995. On the Necessity of Distinguishing between (Un)Boundedness and (A)Telicity. Linguistics and Philosophy 18: 1–19.Google Scholar

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

den Dikken, M. 2006. Realtors and Linkers: The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion and Copulas. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Djalali, Alex. 2012. If You Own It, It Exists; If You Love It, That Says Something about You, Not It: Semantically Conditioned Case in Finnish. In Arnett, Nathan and Bennett, Ryan, eds., Proceedings of the 30th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 131–141.Google Scholar

Dowty, David R. 1979. Word and Meaning in Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language 67(3): 547–619.Google Scholar

Egger, Julia. 2016. Asking the Magic Mirror: Fairytales and Animacy in Malayalam. Nijmegen: Radboud University term paper.Google Scholar

Emonds, Joseph. 1987. The Invisible Category Principle. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 613–632.Google Scholar

Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The Semantics of Specificity. Linguistics Inquiry 22: 1–25.Google Scholar

Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. 1984. The Function of Word Order in Turkish Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. 1986. Pronominal Versus Zero Representation of Anaphora in Turkish. In Slobin, D. I. and Zimmer, K, eds., Studies in Turkish Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 209–231.Google Scholar

Espinal, M. T. and McNally, L. 2011. Bare Nominals and Incorporating Verbs in Spanish and Catalan. Journal of Linguistics 47(1): 87–128.Google Scholar

Evans, Nicholas. 1995. A Grammar of Kayardild: With Historical Notes on Tangkic. In Bossong, George and Chafe, Wallace, eds., Mouton Grammar Library 15. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Farkas, Donka F. 1985. Intensional Descriptions and the Romance Subjunctive Mood. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Farkas, Donka F. 1994. Specificity and Scope. In Nash, L and Tsoulas, G, eds., Langues et Grammaires 1. Paris: University of Paris 8, pp. 119–137.Google Scholar

Farkas, Donka F. 2002. Specificity Distinctions. Journal of Semantics 19: 213–243.Google Scholar

Farkas, Donka F. 2003. Assertion, Belief and Mood Choice. Paper presented at the Workshop on Conditional and Unconditional Modality, ESSLLI, Vienna.Google Scholar

Farkas, Donka F. and Swart, Henrieta de. 2003. The Semantics of Incorporation. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Feldman, H. 1986. A Grammar of Awtuw. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar

Filip, Hana. 1999. Aspect, Eventuality Types and Nominal Reference. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Filip, Hana. 2000. The Quantization Puzzle. In Tenny, C and Pustejovsky, J, eds., Events as Grammatical Objects. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Filip, Hana. 2003. Prefixes and the Delimitation of Events. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 11(1): 55–101.Google Scholar

Filip, Hana. 2008. Events and Maximalization. In Rothstein, Susan, ed., Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 217–256.Google Scholar

Filip, Hana and Rothstein, Susan. 2006. Telicity as a Semantic Parameter. In Lavine, James, Franks, Steven, Filip, Hana and Tasseva-Kurktchieva, Mila, eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (ASL 14), The Princeton University Meeting. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 139–156.Google Scholar

Foley, W. A. 2000. The Languages of New Guinea. Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 357–404.Google Scholar

Fong, Vivienne. 2003. Resultatives and Depictives in Finnish. In Nelson, Diane, and Manninen, Satu, eds., Generative Approaches to Finnic and Saami Linguistics. Stanford: CSLI, pp. 201–234.Google Scholar

Forker, Diana. 2012. Spatial Relations in Hinuq and Bezhta. In Filipović, Luna and Jaszczolt, Katarzyna M., eds., Space and Time in Languages and Cultures: Linguistic Diversity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 15–34.Google Scholar

Fortescue, M. 1984. West Greenlandic. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar

Fowler, George. 1996. Oblique Passivization in Russian. Slavic and East European Journal 40: 519–545.Google Scholar

Franks, Steven. 1995. Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Franks, Steven. 1997. Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax Revisited: A Minimalist Retrospective. In Boskovic, Z, Franks, S and Snyder, W, eds., Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Connecticut Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar

Freeze, R. 1992. Existentials and Other Locatives. Language 68(3): 555–595.Google Scholar

Frege, Gottlob. 1892. On Sinn and Bedeutung. In Michael Beaney, The Frege Reader 1997. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Fukuda, Shin. 2007. Object Case and Event Type: Accusative-Dative Object Case Alternation in Japanese. Berkeley Linguistic Society 33(1): 165–176. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/bls.v33i1.3525.Google Scholar

García, Marco. 2007. Differential Object Marking with Inanimate Objects. In Kaiser, Georg and Leonetti, Manuel, eds., Proceedings of the Workshop “Definiteness, Specificity and Animacy in Ibero-Romance Languages”, Arbeitspapier 122. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz, Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft, pp. 63–84.Google Scholar

van Geenhoven, Veerle. 1998. Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions: Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Noun Incorporation in West Greenlandic. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

van Geenhoven, Veerle and McNally, Louise. 2005. On the Property Analysis of Opaque Complements. Lingua 115: 885–914.Google Scholar

Geist, Ljudmila. 2006. Copular Sentences in Russian Vs. Spanish at the Syntax-Semantics Interface. In Proceedings of the Sinn und Bedeutung 10: 10th annual meeting of the Gesellschaft für Semantik, October 13–15, 2005, Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin; ZASPil Vol. 44, pp. 99–110.Google Scholar

Geist, Ljudmila. 2007. Predication and Equation in Copular Sentences: Russian vs. English. In Comorovski, Ileana and von Heusinger, Klaus, eds., Existence: Semantics and Syntax. Berlin: Springer, pp. 79–105.Google Scholar

Geist, Ljudmila. 2010. The Argument Structure of Predicate Adjectives in Russian. Russian Linguistics 34(3): 239–260.Google Scholar

Göksel, A. and Kerslake, C. 2005. Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Goldschmidt, Anja and Zwarts, Joost. 2016. Hitting the Nail on the Head: Force Vectors in Verb Semantics. In Moroney, Mary, Little, Carol-Rose, Collard, Jacob and Burgdorf, Dan, eds., Proceedings of SALT 26. Austin: University of Texas at Austin, pp. 433–450.Google Scholar

Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and Conversation. In Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry L., eds., Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Grimm, Scott M. 2005. The Lattice of Case and Agentivity. M.Sc. thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Groenendijk, Jeroen and Stokhof, Martin. 1980. A Pragmatic Analysis of Specificity. In Heny, F, ed., Ambiguity in Intensional Contexts. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

De Groot, Casper. 2017. Discovering the Assignment: An Uralic Essive Typological Questionnaire. In de Groot, , ed., Uralic Essive and the Expression of Impermanent State. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar

Guntsetseg, Dolgor. 2009. Differential Object Marking in (Khalkha)-Mongolian. In Shibataki, R and Vermeulen, R, eds., Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar

Guntsetseg, Dolgor, von Heusinger, Klaus, Klein, Udo and Niyazmetowa, Dildora. 2008. Differential Object Marking in Mongolian and Uzbek. Paper presented at SFB 732, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar

Harves, S. 2002a. Genitive of Negation and the Syntax of Scope. In M. van Koppen, E. Thrift, E. J. van der Torre and M. Zimmerman, eds., Proceedings of ConSOLE 9, pp. 96–110.Google Scholar

Harves, S. 2002b. Unaccusative Syntax in Russian. Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, M. 1993. A Grammar of Lezgian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Hedberg, Nancy, Görgülü, Emrah and Mameni, Morgan. 2009. On Definiteness and Specificity in Turkish and Persian. In Proceedings of the 2009 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association.Google Scholar

Hegedüs, V. 2008. Hungarian Spatial PPs. Nordlyd: Tromsø Working Papers in Linguistics 33(2): 220–233.Google Scholar

Heim, Irene. 1992. Presupposition Projection and the Semantics of Attitude Verbs.Journal of Semantics 9: 183–221.Google Scholar

Heinämäki, O. 1984. Aspect in Finnish. In de Groot, C and Tommola, H, eds., Aspect Bound: A Voyage into the Realm of Germanic, Slavonic and Finno-Ugrian Aspectology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Higgins, R. 1973. The Pseudo-cleft Construction in English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

von Heusinger, Klaus. 2002. Specificity and Definiteness in Sentence and Discourse Structure. Journal of Semantics 19: 245–274.Google Scholar

von Heusinger, Klaus. 2008. Verbal Semantics and the Diachronic Development of Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Probus 20: 1–31.Google Scholar

von Heusinger, Klaus and Kaiser, Georg. 2003. The Interaction of Animacy, Definiteness and Specificity in Spanish. In Heusinger, Klaus von and Kaiser, Georg, eds., Proceedings of the Workshop Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Specificity in Romance Languages. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz, pp. 41–65.Google Scholar

von Heusinger, Klaus and Kaiser, Georg A.. 2011. Affectedness and Differential Object Marking in Spanish. Morphology 21(3–4): 593–617.Google Scholar

von Heusinger, Klaus and Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2005. The Case of the Direct Object in Turkish: Semantics, Syntax and Morphology. Turkic Languages 9: 3–44.Google Scholar

von Heusinger, Klaus and Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2017. Partitivity and Case Marking in Turkish and Related Languages. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1): 20, 1–40.Google Scholar

von Heusinger, Klaus, Klein, Udo and Niyazmetowa, Dildora. 2008. Transitivity and the Diachronic Development of Differential Object Marking. Paper presented at the Workshop Transitivity and Case Alternations, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar

von Heusinger, Klaus, Klein, Udo and Guntsetseg, Dolgor. 2011. The Case of Accusative Embedded Subjects in Mongolian. Lingua 121: 48–59.Google Scholar

Heycock, C. and Kroch, A. 1999. Pseudocleft Connectedness: Implications for the LF Interface Level. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 365–398.Google Scholar

Higginbotham, James. 1995. Sense and Syntax. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Hjelmslev, L. 1935/37. La catégorie des cas. Facs, edition 1972, Munich: Wilhem Fink Verlag.Google Scholar

Hole, Daniel, Meinunger, André and Abraham, Werner. 2006. Datives and Other Cases: Between Argument Structure and Event Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Holmberg, A. and Nikanne, U. 1993. Introduction. In Holmberg, Anders and Nikanne, Urpo, eds., Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar

de Hoop, Helen. 1992. Case Configuration and Noun Phrase Interpretation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen.Google Scholar

de Hoop, Helen and Malchukov, Andrej L.. 2007. On Fluid Differential Case Marking: A Bidirectional OT Approach. Lingua 117 (9): 1636–1656.Google Scholar

de Hoop, Helen and Zwarts, Joost. 2008. Case in Formal Semantics. In Malchukov, Andrej and Spencer, Andrew, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1980. Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language 56(2): 251–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Horn, L. R. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Huhmariniemi, S. and Miljan, M. 2018. Finnish and Estonian Partitive Case: in-Between Structure and Semantics. Talk given at the workshop On the Place of Case in Grammar (PlaCiG), Rethymno, Greece.Google Scholar

Hynönen, Emmi. 2017. The Essive in Finnish. In de Groot, Casper, ed., Uralic Essive and the Expression of Impermanent State. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 29–56.Google Scholar

Ionin, Tania. 2006. This Is Definitely Specific: Specificity and Definiteness in Article Systems. Natural Language Semantics 14: 175–234.Google Scholar

Ioup, G. 1977. Specificity and the Interpretation of Quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 233–245.Google Scholar

Isačenko, Aleksandr V. 1960. Grammatičeskij stroj russkogo jazyka v sopostavlenii s slovackim. Morfologija, čast vtoraja [The grammatical structure of Russian in comparison with Slovak – Part two: morphology]. Bratislava: Izdatel’stvo akademii nauk.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and Cognition, 8th edition. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 1996. The Proper Treatment of Measuring Out, Telicity, and Perhaps Even Quantification in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 305–354.Google Scholar

Jakobson, Roman O. 1957/1971. Selected Writings II. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Jakobson, Roman O. 1984. Contribution to the General Theory of Case: General Meanings of the Russian Cases. In Waugh, Linda R., ed., Russian and Slavic Grammar: Studies 1931–1981. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 59–103.Google Scholar

Janda, Laura A. 1993. A Geography of Case Semantics: The Czech Dative and the Russian Instrumental (Cognitive Linguistics Research 4). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jónsson, Jóhannes Gísli. 2000. Case and Double Objects in Icelandic. In Nelson, D and Foulkes, P, eds., Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics 8, pp. 71–94.Google Scholar

Jørgensen, Peter. 1963. German Grammar II. Number and Case. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar

Kagan, Olga. 2005. Genitive Case: A Modal Account. In Falk, Yehuda, ed., Proceedings of Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics 21 (IATL 21).Google Scholar

Kagan, Olga. 2007. Property-Denoting NPs and Non-Canonical Genitive Case In Friedman, Tova and Gibson, Masayuki, eds., Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 17 (SALT 17). Ithaca: CLC Publications, Cornell University, pp. 148–165.Google Scholar

Kagan, Olga. 2009. Intensional Genitive Case and Existential Commitment. In Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL): The Yale Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 81–96.Google Scholar

Kagan, Olga. 2010a. Russian Aspect as Number in the Verbal Domain. In Laca, Brenda and Hofherr, Patricia, eds., Layers of Aspect. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 125–146.Google Scholar

Kagan, Olga. 2010b. Genitive Objects, Existence and Individuation. Russian Linguistics 34(1): 17–39. DOI 10.1007/s11185-009–9051-x.Google Scholar

Kagan, Olga. 2011. On Speaker Identifiability. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 19(1): 47–84. DOI:10.1353/jsl.2011.0008.Google Scholar

Kagan, Olga. 2013. Semantics of Genitive Objects in Russian: A Study of Genitive of Negation and Intensional Genitive Case. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Kagan, Olga. 2015. Scalarity in the Verbal Domain: The Case of Verbal Prefixation in Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kagan, Olga. 2019. Translative Case in Finnish: A Force-Dynamic Account. In Noa Brandel, ed., Proceedings of IATL 33, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, pp. 107–122.Google Scholar

Kagan, Olga. in press. The Definiteness Effect in Russian Existential and Possessive Sentences. In Witkoś, Jacek, Krzek, Malgorzata and Dalmi, Gréte, eds., Approaches to Predicative Possession: The View from Slavic and Finno-Ugric, London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Kagan, Olga. in progress. Change versus Force in the Finnish Case System. Ms., Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.Google Scholar

Kagan, Olga and Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2011a. Bare NPs and Semantic Incorporation: Objects of Intensive Reflexives at the Syntax–Semantics Interface. In Browne, Wayles, Cooper, Adam, Fisher, Alison, Kesici, Esra, Predolac, Nikola and Zec, Draga, eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL 18): The Cornell Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 226–240.Google Scholar

Kagan, Olga and Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2011b. Syntax and Semantics of Bare NPs: Objects of Intensive Reflexive Verbs in Russian. In Bonami, Olivier and Hofherr, Patricia Cabredo, eds., Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 8 (Proceedings of CSSP 8), pp. 221–238.Google Scholar

Karlsson, Fred. 1983. Suomen Peruskielioppi. Jyväakylä: SKS.Google Scholar

Kearns, Kate. 2011. Semantics, 2nd edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Kennedy, C. and Levin, B. 2002. Telicity Corresponds to Degree of Change. Unpublished Ms., Northwestern University and Stanford University.Google Scholar

Kennedy, C. and Levin, B. 2008. Measure of Change: The Adjectival Core of Degree Achievements. In McNally, L and Kennedy, C, eds., Adjectives and Adverbs: Syntax, Semantics and Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 156–182.Google Scholar

Kettunen, L. 1943. Vepsan Murteiden Lauseopillinen Tutkimus. Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia LXXXVI.Google Scholar

Khrizman, Keren. 2011. Imperfective Aspect and Partitive Case in Russian. M.A. thesis, Bar-Ilan University.Google Scholar

Kim, Minjoo. 2003. The Genitive of Negation in Russian: A Relativized Minimality Account. In Partee, B et al., eds., Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 11. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar

Kim, Soowon and Maling, Joan. 1998. Case Assignment in the Siphta Construction and Its Implications for Case On Adverbials. In King, Ross, ed., Description and Explanation in Korean Linguistics. East Asia Program, Cornell University, pp. 133–168.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1998. Partitive Case and Aspect. In Butt, M and Geuder, W, eds., The Projection of Arguments. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 2001a. Structural Case in Finnish. Lingua 111: 315–376.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 2001b. The Partitive Revisited. Handout of talk, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, June 2001.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 2005. Absolutely a Matter of Degree. Handout of talk, CLS 41.Google Scholar

Klein, Udo. 2007. Comparing Rule-Based and Constraint-Based Analyses of Differential Object Marking. Handout of talk given at the workshop on Differential Case Marking, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar

Klein, Udo and Peter, de Swart. 2011. Case and Referential Properties. Lingua 121: 3–19.Google Scholar

Klenin, Emily. 1978. Quantification, Partitivity, and Genitive of Negation in Russian. In Comrie, B, ed., Classification of Grammatical Categories. Edmonton: Linguistic Research, Inc, pp. 163–182.Google Scholar

Komar, E. S. 1999. Dative Subjects in Russian Revisited: Are All Datives Created Equal? In Dziwirek, Katarzyna, Coats, Herbert and Vakareliyska, Cynthia M., eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Seattle Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 245–264.Google Scholar

Kondrashova, N. 1994. Agreement and Dative Subjects in Russian. In Avrutin, S et al., eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The MIT Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 255–85.Google Scholar

Kondrashova, N. 2009. Licensing Modality in Infinitival Structures. In Reich, Jodi, Babyonyshev, Maria and Kavitskaya, Daria, eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Yale Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 131–146.Google Scholar

Koopman, H. 2000. Prepositions, Postpositions, Circumpositions and Particles: The Structure of Dutch PPs. In Koopman, H, ed., The Syntax of Specifiers and Heads. London: Routledge, pp. 204–260.Google Scholar

Kornfilt, J. 2003. Scrambling, Subscrambling and Case in Turkish, Word Order and Scrambling. In Karimi, S, ed., Word Order and Scrambling. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 125–155.Google Scholar

Korpela, Jukka K. 2015. Handbook of Finnish. E-painos, Kindle Edition.Google Scholar

Krasovitsky, Alexander, Long, Alison, Baerman, Matthew, Brown, Dunstan and Corbett, Greville G.. 2008. Predicate Nouns in Russian. Russian Linguistics 32: 99–113.Google Scholar

Kratzer, Angelika. 1994. The Event Argument and the Semantics of Voice. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar

Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the External Argument from Its Verb. In Rooryck, Johann and Zaring, Laurie, eds., Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 109–137.Google Scholar

Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Scope or Pseudo-Scope? Are There Wide-Scope Indefinites? In Rothstein, S, ed., Events and Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 163–196.Google Scholar

Kratzer, Angelika. 2002. Telicity and the Meaning of Objective Case. Ms., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred. 1992. Thematic Relations as Links between Nominal Reference and Temporal Constitution. In Sag, I and Szabolcsi, A, eds., Lexical Matters. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 29–53.Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The Origins of Telicity. In Rothstein, S, ed., Events and Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 197–235.Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred. 2004. Semantic and Pragmatic Conditions for the Dative Alternation. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 4: 1–32.Google Scholar

Krifka, M. and Modarresi, F. 2016. Number Neutrality and Anaphoric Update of Pseudo-Incorporated Nominals in Persian (and Weak Definites in English). In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 26.Google Scholar

Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1971. Słowiański genetivus po negacij. In Sesja naukowa międzynarodowej komisji budowy gramatycznej języków słowiańskich, pp. 11–14.Google Scholar

Landau, Idan. 1999. Possessor Raising and the Structure of VP. Lingua 107: 1–37.Google Scholar

Landau, Idan. 2010. The Locative Syntax of Experiencers. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Larson, R. 1988. On the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–391.Google Scholar

Legate, Julie Anne. 2008. Morphological and Abstract Case. Linguistic Inquiry 39(1): 55–101.Google Scholar

Lee, In Que. 1997. Dative Constructions and Case Theory in Korean. Ph.D. Dissertation, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar

Lees, Aet. 2015. Case Alternations in Five Finnic Languages: Estonian, Finnish, Karelian, Livonian and Veps. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera. 2006. German Possessor Datives: Raised and Affected. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 9: 101–142.Google Scholar

Lestrade, Sander. 2010. The Space of Case. Ph.D. dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar

Levin, Beth. 2008. Dative Verbs: A Crosslinguistic Perspective. Lingvisticae Investigationes 31(2): 285–312.Google Scholar

Levin, Beth and Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax–Lexical Semantics Interface. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 26. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Levin, Lori and Simpson, Jane. 1981. Quirky Case and Lexical Representations of Icelandic Verbs. In Hendrick, Roberta A., Masek, Carrie S. and Miller, Mary Frances, eds., Papers from the Seventeenth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: University of Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 185–196.Google Scholar

Levinson, Dmitry. 2005. Aspect in Negative Imperatives and Genitive of Negation: A Unified Analysis of two Phenomena in Slavic Languages. Ms. Stanford University, California.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Levy-Forsythe, Zarina. 2018. Object Incorporation in Uzbek. M.A. thesis, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.Google Scholar

Lidz, J. 2006. The Grammar of Accusative Case in Kannada. Language 82(1): 10–32.Google Scholar

Lomonosov, M. V. 1952. Rossijskaja Grammatika [Russian Grammar]. Polnoje sobranije sočinenij [Complete Works], vol. 7 (Trudy po filologii 1739–1758 gg.).Google Scholar

López, Luis. 2012. Indefinite Objects: Scrambling, Choice Functions, and Differential Marking. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Lunt, Horace Gray. 1955. Old Church Slavonic Grammar. Gravenhage: Mouton.Google Scholar

Lyutikova, E. and Ibatullina, D. 2015. Case Theory and Case Variation in Tatar. In Лютикова, Е, Циммерлинг, А and Коношенко, М, eds., Материалы международной конференции Типология морфосинтаксических параметров 2015. 2. Мoscow: МПГУ, pp. 228–244.Google Scholar

Lyutikova, E. and Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2015. The Tatar DP. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La revue canadienne de linguistique 60(3): 289–325.Google Scholar

Magometov, A. A. 1965. Tabasaranskij Jazyk (Isledovanie i Teksty) [The Tabasaran Language (Investigation and Texts)]. Tbilisi: Mecniereba.Google Scholar

Maienborn, C. 2005. A Discourse-Based Account of Spanish ser/estar. Linguistics 43(1): 155–180.Google Scholar

Malchukov, Andrej L. 2008. Animacy and Asymmetries in Differential Case Marking. Lingua 118: 203–221.Google Scholar

Malchukov, Andrej L. and Helen, de Hoop. 2011. Tense, Aspect, and Mood Based Differential Case Marking. Lingua 121: 35–47.Google Scholar

Malchukov, Andrej. L. and Spencer, Andrew. 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Malchukov, A. L. and de Swart, P. 2008. Differential Case Marking and Actancy Variations. In Malchukov, A and Spencer, A, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 339–355.Google Scholar

Maling, Joan. 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.Google Scholar

Maling, Joan. 2001. Dative: The Heterogeneity of the Mapping Among Morphological Case, Grammatical Functions, and Thematic Roles. Lingua 111: 419–464.Google Scholar

Maling, Joan. 2002. Verbs with Dative Objects in Icelandic. Íslenskt mál 24: 31–105.Google Scholar

Manandise, E. 1988. Evidence from Basque for a New Theory of Grammar. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and Licensing. In Westphal, Germán F, Ao, Benjamin and Chae, Hee-Rahk, eds., ESCOL 91: Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, pp. 234–253.Google Scholar

Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of Asymmetries in Double Object Constructions. In Mchombo, S. A., ed., Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar 1. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 113–151.Google Scholar

Marantz, Alec. 1997. No Escape from Syntax: Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon. In Dimitriadis, Alexis, Siegel, Laura, Surek-Clark, Clarissa and Williams, Alex. eds., University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics vol. 4.2. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 201–225.Google Scholar

Matushansky, Ora. 2000. The Instrument of Inversion: Instrumental Case in the Russian Copula. Proceedings of WCCFL 19.Google Scholar

Matushansky, Ora. 2008. A Case Study of Predication. In Marušič, F and Žaucer, R, eds., Studies in Formal Slavic Linguistics. Contributions from Formal Description of Slavic Languages 6.5. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 213–239.Google Scholar

Mayo, Peter. 2002. Belorussian. In Comrie, Bernard and Corbett, Greville G., eds., The Slavonic Languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

McFadden, Thomas. 2002. The Structure of Inherent, Quirky and Semantic Cases. Ms., University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

McFadden, Thomas. 2004. The Position of Morphological Case in the Derivation: A Study on the Syntax–Morphology Interface. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

McNally, Louise. 1998. Existential Sentences without Existential Quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 353–392.Google Scholar

McNally, Louise. 2004. Bare Plurals in Spanish Are Interpreted as Properties. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 3: 115–133.Google Scholar

McNally, Louise and van Geenhoven, Veerle. 1998. Redefining the Weak/Strong Distinction. Expanded version of a paper presented at the 1997 Paris Syntax and Semantics Colloquium.Google Scholar

Melchuk, Igor. 1986. Toward a Definition of Case. In Brecht, R. D. and Levine, J. S., eds., Case in Slavic. USA: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar

Mikkelsen, Line. 2004. Specifying Who: on the Structure, Meaning, and Use of Specificational Copular Clauses. Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Santa Cruz.Google Scholar

Mikkelsen, Line. 2005. Copular Clauses: Specification, Predication and Equation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Mitchell, Erika. 1991. Case and the Finnish Object. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 9: 193–228.Google Scholar

Miyoshi, Nobuhiro. 2002. The Genitive of Negation in Slavic: A Minimalist Approach. In Toman, J, ed., Proceedings of Tenth Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Second Ann Arbor Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar

Mohanan, K. P. and Mohanan, Tara. 1990. Dative Subjects in Malayalam: Semantic Information in Syntax. In M. K. Verma and K. P. Mohanan, eds., Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languages. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 43–57.Google Scholar

Mohanan, Tara. 1994. Argument Structure in Hindi. Stanford.: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Moravcsik, E. 1978. On the Case Marking of Objects. In Greenberg, J, ed., Universals of Human Language; Volume 4: Syntax. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 249–290.Google Scholar

Moro, A. 1997. The Raising of Predicates: Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Moro, A. 2000. Dynamic Antisymmetry. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Muller, Claude. 1997. De partitif et la negation. In Forget, D, Hirschbuhler, P, Martineau, F and Rivero, M. L., eds., Negation and Polarity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Narrog, Heiko. 2011. Varieties of Instrumental. In Malchukov, A. L. and Spencer, A, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 593–600.Google Scholar

Nash, Léa. 1996. The Internal Ergative Subject Hypothesis. In Kusumoto, Kiyomi, ed., NELS 26. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, GLSA, pp. 195–209.Google Scholar

Nau, Nicole. 1999. Latvian. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar

Neidle, Carol. 1988. The Role of Case in Russian Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Newman, J. and Rice, S. 2006. Transitivity Schemas of English EAT and DRINK in the BNC. In Gries, S. Th. and Stefanowitsch, A, eds., Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 225–260.Google Scholar

Niemi, Clemens. 1945. Finnish Grammar, 3rd edition. Duluth: C.H. Salminen.Google Scholar

Nikanne, Urpo. 1993. On Assigning Semantic Cases in Finnish. In Holmberg, Anders and Nikanne, Urpo, eds., Case and Other Functional Categories in Finnish Syntax, pp. 75–89. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Ojajärvi, Aulis. 1950. Sijojen merkitystehtävistä Itä-Karjalan Maaselän murteissa. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar

Özge, U. 2011. Turkish Indefinites and Accusative Marking. In Simpson, A, ed., Proceedings of WAFL 7. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 253–267.Google Scholar

Öztürk, Balkiz. 2005. Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Padučeva, Elena V. 1992. O semantičiskeskom podxode k sintaksisu i genitivnom subjekte glagola byt’. [On the semantic approach to syntax and the genitive subject of the verb byt’]. Russian Linguistics 16: 53–63.Google Scholar

Padučeva, Elena V. 1997. Roditel’nyj subjecta v otricatel’nom predloženii: sinaksis ili semantika? [Genitive of subject in a negative sentence: syntax or semantics?]. Voprosy jazykoznania 2: 101–116.Google Scholar

Palancar, Enrique L. 2011. Varieties of Ergative. In Malchukov, A. L. and Spencer, A, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 562–571.Google Scholar

Parsons, T. 1990. Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Partee, Barbara H. 1986. Noun Phrase Interpretation and Type Shifting Principles. In Groenendijk, J, de Jongh, D and Stokhof, M, eds., Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalised Quantifiers. Dordrecht:Foris.Google Scholar

Partee, Barbara H. 1999. Copula Inversion Puzzles in English and Russian. In Dziwirek, K, Coats, H and Vakareliyska, C, eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Seattle Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 361–395.Google Scholar

Partee, Barbara H. 2000. Some Remarks on Linguistic Uses of the Notion of “Event.” In Tenny, C and Pustejovsky, J, eds., Events as Grammatical Objects. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Partee, Barbara H. 2005. Weak Noun Phrases: Semantics and Syntax. Paper presented at Dialog-21, Moscow.Google Scholar

Partee, Barbara H. 2008. Negation, Intensionality, and Aspect: Interaction with NP Semantics. In Rothstein, Susan, ed., Theoretical and Cross-linguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Partee, Barbara H. and Borschev, Vladimir. 2004. The Semantics of Russian Genitive of Negation: The Nature and Role of Perspectival Structure. Paper presented at SALT 14.Google Scholar

Partee, Barbara H. and Borschev, Vladimir. 2007. Pros and Cons of a Type-Shifting Approach to Russian Genitive of Negation. In ten Cate, B. D. and Zeevat, H. W., eds., Proceedings of the Sixth International Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic and Computation (Batumi 2005). Berlin: Springer, pp. 166–188.Google Scholar

Partee, Barbara H. and Borschev, Vladimir. 2008. Existential Sentences, BE and the Genitive of Negation in Russian. In Comorowski, I and von Heusinger, K, eds., Existence: Semantics and Syntax. New York: Springer, pp. 147–191.Google Scholar

Pereltsvaig, Asya. 1998. Genitive of Negation in Russian. In Proceedings of IATL 13, pp. 167–190.Google Scholar

Pereltsvaig, Asya. 1999. The Genitive of Negation and Aspect in Russian. In Y. Rose and J. Steele, eds., McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 14, pp. 111–140.Google Scholar

Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2000. On Accusative Adverbials in Russian and Finnish. In Wyner, Adam Z., ed., The Israeli Association for Theoretical Linguistics. The Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference (IATL 15), Jerusalem, 165–190.Google Scholar

Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2001. On the Nature of Intra-Clausal Relations. Ph.D. thesis, McGill University.Google Scholar

Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2007. Copular Sentences in Russian. A Theory of Intra-Clausal Relations. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Pesetsky, David M. 1982. Paths and Categories. Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar

Pesetsky, David M. 2013. Russian Case Morphology and the Syntactic Categories. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Pesetsky, David and Torrego, Esther. 2004. Tense, Case, and the Nature of Syntactic Categories. In Guéron, J and Lecarme, J, eds., The Syntax of Time. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Podobryaev, A. 2013. Differential Case Marking in Turkic as Intermediate Dependent Case. In Özge, U, ed., Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL8). 67. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Cambridge: MITWPL, pp. 281–292.Google Scholar

Polinsky, M and Nedjalkov, V. 1987. Contrasting the Absolutive in Chukchee: Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics. Lingua 71: 239–269.Google Scholar

Potebnja, A. A. 1958. Iz zapisok po russkoj grammatike. Vol. I-II. Moscow: Min. prosv. RSFSR.Google Scholar

Priestly, T. M. S. 2002. Slovene. In Comrie, Bernard and Corbett, Greville G., eds., The Slavonic Languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Pugh, Stefan M. and Press, Ian. 1999. Ukrainian: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Pylkkänen, L. 2000. What Applicative Heads Apply To. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium. Volume 7(1): 197–210.Google Scholar

Pylkkänen, L. 2002/2008. Introducing Arguments. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Rákosi, György. 2006. Dative Experiencer Predicates in Hungarian. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar

Rákosi, György. 2008. Some Remarks on Hungarian Ethical Datives. In József, Andor, Béla, Hollósy, Tibor, Laczkó and Péter, Pelyvás, eds., When Grammar Minds Language and Literature. Festschrift for Prof. Béla Korponay on the Occasion of His 80th Birthday. Debrecen: Institute of English and American Studies, University of Debrecen, pp. 413–422.Google Scholar

Ramchand, G. 2011. Licensing of Instrumental Case in Hindi/Urdu Causatives. Nordlyd 38, ed. Peter Svenonius, pp. 49–85. CASTL, Tromsø.Google Scholar

Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Levin, Beth. 2008. The English Dative Alternation: The Case for Verb Sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44: 129–167.Google Scholar

Reinhart, Tanya. 1997. Quantifier Scope: How Labor Is Divided between QR and Choice-Functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 335–397.Google Scholar

Reinhart, Tanya. 2000. The Theta System: Syntactic Realization of Verbal Concepts. UIL-OTS Working Papers in Linguistics. University of Utrecht.Google Scholar

Reinhart, Tanya. 2002. The Theta System – an Overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28: 229–290.Google Scholar

Richards, Norvin. 2007. Lardil “Case Stacking” and the Structural/Inherent Case Distinction. lingBuzz/000405.Google Scholar

Richards, Norvin. 2013. Lardil “Case Stacking” and the Timing of Case Assignment. Syntax 16(1): 42–76.Google Scholar

van Riemsdijk, Henk. 2007. Case in Spatial Adpositional Phrases: The Dative-Accusative Alternation in German. In Alboiu, Gabriela, Avram, Andrei, Avram, Larisa and Dana, Isac, eds., Festschrift for Alexandra Cornilescu. Bucharest: Bucharest University Press.Google Scholar

van Riemsdijk, H., and Huybregts., R 2007. Location and Locality. In Karimi, S, Samiian, V and Wilkins, W. K., eds., Phrasal and Clausal Architecture. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 339–364.Google Scholar

Rigau, G. 1986. Some Remarks on the Nature of Strong Pronouns in Null-Subject Languages. In Bordelois, I, Contreras, H and Zagona, K, eds., Generative Studies in Spanish Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 143–163.Google Scholar

Round, Erich R. 2009. Kayardild Morphology, Phonology and Morphosyntax. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University.Google Scholar

Rozental, D., Golub, I and Telenkova, M 2008. Sovremennyj Russkij Jazyk. Moscow: Airis Press.Google Scholar

Salminen, Taru. 2002. Retention of Abstract Meaning: The Essive Case and Grammaticalization of Polyphony in Finnish. In Wischer, Ilse and Diewald, Gabriele, eds., New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Sands, Kristina. 2000. Complement Clauses and Grammatical Relations in Finnish. Ph.D. thesis, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar

Sawicki, Lea. 1988. Verb-Valency in Contemporary Polish: A Study of the Major Valency-Types. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar

Schoorlemmer, M. 1994. Dative Subjects in Russian. In Toman, J, ed., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Ann Arbor Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 129–72.Google Scholar

Serdobolskaya, Natalya and Toldova, Svetlana. 2006. Direct Object Marking in Finno-Ugric and Turkic Languages: Verb Semantics and Definiteness of Direct Object NP. Paper presented at the Workshop on Presupposition Accommodation, 13–15 October 2006, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar

Sheehan, Michelle. 2017. Parameterizing Ergativity: An Inherent Case Approach. In Coon, Jessica, Massam, Diane and Travis, Lisa Demena, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Siegal, Elitzur Bar-Asher and Boneh, Nora. 2015. Decomposing Affectedness: Truth-Conditional Non-core Datives in Modern Hebrew. In Melnik, Nurit, ed., Proceedings of IATL 30. www.iatl.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/IATL30proceedings-01-Bar-Asher-Siegal_Boneh-.pdf.Google Scholar

Smith, C. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar

Smith, Michael B. 1985. Event Chains, Grammatical Relations, and the Semantics of Case in German. Chicago Linguistic Society 21: 388–407.Google Scholar

Smith, Michael B. 1987. The Semantics of Dative and Accusative in German: An Investigation in Cognitive Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar

Smith, Michael B. 1993. Cases as Conceptual Categories: Evidence from German. In Geiger, Richard A. and Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida, eds., Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 531–565.Google Scholar

Smith, Michael B. 1995. Semantic Motivation vs. Arbitrariness in Grammar: Toward a More General Account of the Dative/Accusative Contrast with German Two-way Prepositions. In Irmengard, Rauch and Carr, Gerald, eds., Insights in Germanic Linguistics I: Methodology in Transition (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs, 83). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 293–323.Google Scholar

Smith, Michael B. 1999. From Instrument to Irrealis: Motivating Some Grammaticalized Senses of the Russian Instrumental. In Dziwirek, K, Coats, H and Vakareliyska, C, eds., Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Seattle Meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 413–433.Google Scholar

Smith, Michael B. 2001. Why Quirky Case Really Isn’t Quirky (Or How to Treat Dative Sickness in Icelandic). In Cuyckens, Hubert and Zawada, Britta, eds., Polysemy in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 115–159.Google Scholar

Smith, Michael B. 2002. The Polysemy of German es, Iconicity, and the Notion of Conceptual Distance. Cognitive Linguistics 13: 67–112.Google Scholar

Smith, Michael B. 2005. The Conceptual Structure of German Impersonal Constructions. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 17: 79–140.Google Scholar

Smolensky, P. 1995. On the Internal Structure of the Constraint Component CON of UG. Handout of talk UCLA, April 7, 1995.Google Scholar

Song, Jae Jung. 2001. Linguistic Typology: Morphology and Syntax. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Soschen, A. 2002. On the Distribution of Copula Elements in Hebrew, Russian and Spanish. Ms., University of Ottawa.Google Scholar

Spyropoulos, V. 2018. Case, Function and PP Structure in Ancient Greek. Talk given at the workshop On the Place of Case in Grammar (PlaCiG), Rethymno, Greece.Google Scholar

Starke, M. 2017. Resolving (DAT = ACC) ≠ GEN. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1): 104. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.408.Google Scholar

Stowell, Tim. 1982. The Tense of Infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 561–570.Google Scholar

Strawson, P. F. 1950. On Referring. Mind 59: 320–344.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 1985. The Semantic Variability of Absolute Constructions. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Sulger, S. 2012. Nominal Argument Structure and the Stage-/Individual-Level Contrast in Hindi/Urdu. In Online Proceedings of the LFG12 Conference, Udayana University, Bali, Indonesia. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Svenonius, Peter. 2002. Icelandic Case and the Structure of Events. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5: 197–225.Google Scholar

Svenonius, Peter. 2006. Interpreting Uninterpretable Features. Linguistic Analysis 33(3–4): 375–413.Google Scholar

Svenonius, Peter. 2012. Drowning “into” the River in North Sámi: Uses of the Illative. In Filipović, Luna and Jaszczolt, Katarzyna M., eds., Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 73–94.Google Scholar

de Swart, Peter. 2003. The Case Mirror. M.A. thesis, University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar

de Swart, Peter. 2007. Cross-Linguistic Variation in Object Marking. Ph.D. dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen. LOT Publications.Google Scholar

de Swart, Peter and Helen, de Hoop. 2007. Semantic Aspects of Differential Object Marking. In Puig-Waldmüller, E, ed., Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra, pp. 598–611.Google Scholar

de Swart, Peter and Helen, de Hoop. 2018. Shifting Animacy. Theoretical Linguistics 44(1–2): 1–23.Google Scholar

Talmy, L. 1983. How Language Structures Space. In Pick, H and Acredolo, L, eds., Spatial Orientation: Theory, Research and Application. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar

Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Taube, M. 2015. The Usual Suspects: Slavic, Yiddish, and the Accusative Existentials and Possessives in Modern Hebrew. Journal of Jewish Languages 3(1–2): 27–37.Google Scholar

Testelets, J. G. and Khalilov, M. Sch.. 1998. Bezhtinskij jazyk [The Bezhta Language]. Moscow Jazyki mira: Kavkazskije jazyki.Google Scholar

Timberlake, Alan. 1986. Hierarchies in the Genitive of Negation. In Brecht, R. D. and Levine, J. S., eds., Case in Slavic. Bloomington: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar

Tournadre, Nicolas. 1996. L’ergativité en tibétain. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar

Ueda, Masako. 1993. Set-Membership Interpretations and the Genitive of Negation. Russian Linguistics 17: 237–262.Google Scholar

Uspensky, B.A. 1993. “Davnopreshedshee” i “vtoroj roditel’nyj” v russkom jazyke. [“Plusquamperfect” and the “second genitive” in Russian]. In Issledovanija po slavjanskomu istoricheskomu jazykoznaniju. Moscow: Moscow University Press.Google Scholar

Vainikka, Anne. 1989. Deriving Syntactic Representations in Finnish. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar

Vainikka, Anne and Maling, Joan. 1996. Is Partitive Case Inherent or Structural? In Hoeksema, J, ed., Partitives. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Vainikka, Anne and Brattico, Pauli. 2014. The Finnish Accusative: Long Distance Case Assignment Under Agreement. Linguistics 52(1): 73–124.Google Scholar

Vendler, Z. 1957. Verbs and Times. Philosophical Review 56: 143–160.Google Scholar

Verkuyl, H. J. 1972. On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Vinogradov, V. V. 1947. Russkij jazyk. Moscow-Leningrad.Google Scholar

Wechsler, Stephen and Lee, Yae-Sheik. 1996. The Domain of Direct Case-Assignment. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 629–664.Google Scholar

Wierzbicka, Anna. 1980. The Case for Surface Case. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar

Wolff, Phillip. 2007. Representing Causation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 136(1): 82–111.Google Scholar

Woolford, Ellen. 1995. Object Agreement in Palauan: Specificity, Humanness, Economy and Optimality. In Beckman, J. N., Dickey, L. W. and Urbanczyk, S, eds., Papers in Optimality Theory. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18. Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 655–700.Google Scholar

Woolford, Ellen. 2006. Lexical Case, Inherent Case, and Argument Structure. Linguistics Inquiry 37(1): 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Yadroff, Michael. 1995. AspP and Licensing of Pro-arb Objects. In Proceedings of WECOL 94. Los Angeles: UCLA Press.Google Scholar

Yoon, James. 2004. Non-Nominative (Major) Subjects and Case Stacking in Korean. In Bhaskararao, Peri and Karumuri Venkata, Subbarao, eds., Non-nominative Subjects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, volume 2, pp. 265–314.Google Scholar

Zimmer, Karl and Erguvanlı, Eser. 1994. Case Marking in Turkish Indefinite Object Constructions. In Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session Dedicated to the Contributions of Charles J. Fillmore, pp. 547–552.Google Scholar

Zimmerman, Ede. 1993. On the Proper Treatment of Opacity in Certain Verbs. Natural Language Semantics 1: 149–179.Google Scholar

Zucchi, A. 1999. Incomplete Events, Intensionality and Imperfective Aspect. Natural Language Semantics 7: 179–215.Google Scholar

Zushi, M. 1992. The Syntax of Dative Constructions in Japanese. Ms., McGill University.Google Scholar

Zwarts, Joost. 2005. The Case of Prepositions: Government and Compositionality in German PPs. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Meeting of the Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics, Haifa, June 23, 2005.Google Scholar

Zwarts, Joost. 2006. Case Marking Direction: The Accusative in German PPs. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar