Cover not available
Part of
Advances in the Syntax of DPs: Structure, agreement, and case
Edited by Anna Bondaruk, Gréte Dalmi and Alexander Grosu
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 217] 2014
► pp. 1–12

Introduction

Published online: 14 October 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.217.01gro
References (95)
References
Abney, Stephen. 1987. The English Noun Phrase and Its Sentential Aspect. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner. 2007. Discourse binding. DP and pronouns in German, Dutch, and English. In Nominal Determination. Typology, Context Constraint, and Historical Emergence [Studies in Language Companion Series 89], Elisabeth Stark, Elisabeth Leiss & Werner Abraham (eds), 21–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Wilder, Christopher (eds). 1998. Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 22]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Law, Paul, Meinunger, André & Wilder, Christopher. 2000. The Syntax of Relative Clauses [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 32]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2014. Multiple Determiners and the Structure of DPs [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 211]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Babyonishev, Maria. 1997. The possessive construction in Russian. A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 5(2): 193–234.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 1999. Consequences of Antisymmetry: Headed Relative Clauses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000a. The raising analysis of relative clauses: A reply to Borsley. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 123–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000b. Some issues in the syntax of relative determiners. In The Syntax of Relative Clauses, edited by Artemis Alexiadou, Paul Law & Chris Wilder, 53–81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borsley, Robert D. 1997. Relative clauses and the theory of phrase structure. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 629–647.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 2002. Adjectives, Number and Interfaces: Why Languages Vary. Oxford: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
. 2009. A solution to the conceptual problem of cartography. In Alternatives to Cartography, Jeroen van Craenenbroeck (ed.), 245–274. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1988. On si constructions and the theory of Arb . Linguistic Inquiry 19(4): 521–581.Google Scholar
(ed.) 2002. Functional Structure in DP and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 1. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville. 1979. The agreement hierarchy. Journal of Linguistics 15: 203–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cornilescu. Alexandra. 1995. Rumanian genitive constructions. In Advances in Rumanian [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 10], Guglielmo Cinque & Giuliana Giusti (eds), 1–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delsing, Lars-Olof 1993. The Internal Structure of Noun Phrases in the Scandinavian Languages. Lund: Universty of Lund.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen. 2000. (In)definiteness spread: From Romanian genitives to Hebrew construct state nominals. In Comparative Studies in Romanian Syntax, Virginia Motapanyane (ed.), 177–226. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen & Giurgea, Ion. 2013. A Reference Grammar of Romanian, Vol. 1: The Noun Phrase [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 207]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elbourne, Paul. 1999. Some correlations between semantic plurality and quantifier scope. In NELS 29: Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society , Pius Tamanji, Masako Hirotani & Nancy Hall (eds), 81–92. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara. 2007. Subjects, topics, and the interpretation of referential pro. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 691–734. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gallmann, Peter. 1990, Kategoriell Komplexe Wortformen: Das Zusammenwirken von Morphologie und Syntax bei der Flexion von Nomen und Adjektiv. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Giorgi, Alssandra & Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1991. The Syntax of Noun Phrases. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana. 1997. The categorical status of determiners. In New Comparative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 95–123. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
. 1995. Heads and modifiers among determiners: Evidence from Rumanian. In Advances in Roumanian Linguistics, edited by Gugliemo Cinque & Giuliana Giusti, 103–125. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. The functional structure of noun phrases. A bare phrase structure approach. In Functional Structure in DP and IP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 1, Guglielmo Cinque (ed.), 54–91. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2008. Agreement and concord in nominal expressions. In The Bantu-Romance Connection. A Comparative Investigation of Verbal Agreement, DPs, and Information Structure [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 131], 201-237, Cecil De Cat & Katherine Demuth (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosu, Alexander. 1988. On the distribution of genitive phrases in Rumanian. Linguistics 26: 931-949. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. Three Studies in Locality and Case. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. A unified theory of ‘standard’ and ‘transparent’ free relatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 247–331 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 1987. Die Struktur der Deutschen NP. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 7: 32 – 59.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Ritter, Elizabeth. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78(3): 482–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Higgins, Roger. 1979. The Pseudo-cleft Construction in English. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2010a. Null subject parameters. In Null Subjects and Parameters in a Minimalist Perspective, Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds), 88–125. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 2010b. The null generic subject pronoun in Finnish: A case of incorporation in T. In Null Subjects and Parameters in a Minimalist Perspective, Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds), 200-231. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. 1995. On the quantificational force of English free relatives. In Quantification in Natural Languages,Vol.2, Emmon Bach, Elinor Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer & Barbara Partee (eds), 451– 486. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kajita, Masaru. 1977. Towards a dynamic model of syntax. Studies in English Linguistics 5: 44–66.Google Scholar
Katzir, Roni. 2011. Morphosemantic mismatches, structural economy, and licensing. Linguistic Inquiry 42: 45–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok. 2004. Hybrid agreement in English. Linguistics 42(6): 1105–1128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2003. Movement out of control. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 471– 498. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Two routes of control: Evidence from case transmission in Russian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 877–924. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mallen, Enrique. 1997a. A minimalist approach to concord in noun phrases. Theoretical Linguistics 23: 49–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997b. Full feature specification and negative lexicalization in Spanish. Groninger Arbeiten zur Gerministischen Linguistik 40: 209–227.Google Scholar
. 2002. On the distribution of restrictive and nonrestrictive adjectives in Germanic and Romance. In New Insights in Germanic III, edited by James F. Lee, Kimberly L. Geeslin, & J. Clancy Clements, 177-210. >Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Moltmann, Friederike. 2006. Generic one, arbitrary PRO, and the first person. Natural Language Semantics 14: 257–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Generalizing detached self-reference and the semantics of generic one . Mind and Language 25(4): 440–473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Two kinds of first person-oriented content. Synthese 184(2): 157–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moro, Andrea. 1997. The Raising of Predicates. Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Dynamic Antisymmetry. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nakau, Minoru. 1971. The grammar of the pseudo-free relative pronoun what . English Linguistics 6: 2–47.Google Scholar
Norris, Mark, Mikkelsen, Line & Hankamer, Jorge. 2013. Licensing trouble. Linguistic Inquiry 45(4).Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2001. On the Nature of Intra-clausal Relations. PhD dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
. 2007. Copular Sentences in Russian. A Theory of Intra-clausal Relations. New York NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 2012. Russian case morphology and the syntactic categories. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Reeve, Matthew. 2010. Clefts. PhD dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1998. Trees and scions, science and trees. Chomsky 70th Birthday Celebration Fest Webpage. [URL]Google Scholar
. 2000. Free relatives inside out: Transparent free relatives as grafts. In PASE Papers in Language Studies. Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of the Polish Association for the Study of English , Bożena Rozwadowska (ed.), 223–233. Wrocław: Aksel.Google Scholar
. 2001. A far from simple matter: syntactic reflexes of syntax-pragmatics misalignments. In Semantics, Pragmatics and Discourse. Perspectives and Connections. A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 90], István Kenesei & Robert M. Harnish (eds), 21–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006a. Grafts follow from Merge. In Phases of Interpretation, Mara Frascarelli (ed.), 17–44. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006b. Free relatives. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Martin Everaert, Henk van Riemsdijk, Rob Goedemans & Bart Hollebrandse (eds), 338–382. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Discerning default datives: Some properties of the dative case in German. In Discourse and Grammar, Günther Grewendorf & Ede T. Zimmermann, 247-287. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth. 1988. A head movement approach to construct state noun phrases. Linguistics 26: 909-930. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. Two functional categories in noun phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. In Syntax and Semantics 26. Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing, Susan Rothstein (ed.), 37-67. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. On the cartography of syntactic structures. In The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. The Structure of CP and IP, Luigi Rizzi (ed.), 3–17. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2006. On the form of chains. Criterial positions and chain effects. In Wh-movement: Moving on, Lisa Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds), 97–134. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2013. Topic, focus and the cartography of clauses. In The Bloomsbury Companion to Syntax, Silvia Luraghi & Claudia Parodi (eds), 36–450. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Holmberg, Anders. 2010. Introduction: Parameters in minimalist theory. In Null Subjects and Parameters in a Minimalist Perspective, Theresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds), 1–58. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Rutkowski, Paweł. 2007. The syntactic properties and diachronic development of post-nominal adjectives in Polish. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Toronto Meeting 2006, Richard Compton, Magdalena Goledzinowska & Ulyana Savchenko (eds), 326–345. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
2009. Fraza przedimkowa w polszczyźnie. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo UW, Wydział Polonistyki.Google Scholar
. 2012. Is nP Part of Universal Grammar? Journal of Universal Language 13(2): 119–144.Google Scholar
Rutkowski, Paweł & Progovac, Ljiliana. 2005. Classification projection in Polish and Serbian: The position and shape of classifying adjectives. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The South Carolina Meeting, Steven Franks, Frank Y. Gladney & Mila Tasseva-Kurktchieva (eds), 289–299. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Schelfhout, Carla, Peter-Arno Coppen & Nelleke Oostdijk. 2004. Transparent Free Relatives. In Proceedings of ConSOLE XII 2003 , Sylvia Blaho, Luis Vicente & Mark de Vos. Patras. [URL]
Shlonsky, Ur. 1988. Government and binding in Hebrew nominals. Linguistics 26(6): 951 – 976. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2004. The syntax of person, tense and speech features. Italian Journal of Linguistics 16: 219-251. Special issue edited by Valentina Bianchi & Kenneth Safir.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór, Ármann. 2009. Remarks on features. In Explorations of Phase Theory: Features and Arguments, Kleanthes Grohmann (ed.), 21–52. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siloni, Tal. 2001. Construct states at the PF interface. Language Variation Yearbook 1: 229 – 266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Noun Phrases and Nominalizations [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory Series]. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Smith, Peter W. 2013. Collective (dis)agreement: On a 3/4 pattern of British English collective NPs. In Proceedings of ConSOLE XX, Enrico Boone, Martin Kohlberger & Maartje Schulpen (eds), 229–253. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden.Google Scholar
Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 2004. Feature checking, case, and agreement in German DPs. In Explorations in Nominal Inflection, Gereon Müller, Lutz Gunkel & Gisela Zifonun (eds), 269–299. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Struckmeier, Volker. 2007. Attribute im Deutschen: zu ihren Eigenschaften und ihrer Position im gramatischen System. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 1994. Dependent Nexus: Subordinate Predication Structures in English and the Scandinavian Languages. PhD Diss, Santa Cruz, CA: Univeristy of California at Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna.1983. The possessor that ran away. The Linguistic Review 3: 89-102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1987. Functional categories in the noun phrase. In Approaches to Hungarian 2, István Kenesei, 167-189. Szeged: JATEGoogle Scholar
. 1994. The noun phrase. In The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian [Syntax and Semantics 27], Ferenc Kiefer & Katalin É. Kiss (eds). 1-84. New York, NY. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Trugman, Helen. 2005. More puzzles about post-nominal genitives. In Possessives and Beyond: Semantics and Syntax [UMOP 29], Ji-yung Kim, Yury A. Lander & Barbara H. Partee (eds), 217-240. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
. 2007. Possessives within and beyond NPs. In Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, Richard Compton, Magdalena Goledzinowska & Ulyana Savchenko (eds), 437-457. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
. 2008. Move versus Merge: DP-Internal Modifiers. In Elements of Slavic and Germanic Grammars: A Comparative View, Jacek Witkoś & Gisbert Fanselow (eds), 209-235. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
van de Velde, Freek. 2011. Left-peripheral expansion of the English NP. English Language and Linguistics 15(2): 387-415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wechsler Stephen & Zlatić, Lara. 2003. The Many Faces of Agreement. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Wilder, Christopher. 1998. Transparent free relatives. ZAS Papers in Linguistics10: 191–199. Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 2000. A head-raising analysis of relative clauses in Dutch. In The Syntax of Relative Clauses, edited by Artemis Alexiadou, Paul Law, and Chris Wilder, 349-385. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar