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. 6194
Adger, David & Ramchand, Gillian
2003Predication and equation. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 325–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena
2003The Syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from Clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Błaszczak, Joanna
2007Phase Syntax: The Polish Genitive of Negation. Habilitation dissertation, University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Błaszczak, Joanna & Geist, Ljudmila
2000Kopulasätze mit den pronominalen Elementen to/ėto in Polnischen und Russischen. In Copular and AUX – Constructions[ZAS Papers in Linguistics 16], Ewald Lang (ed.), 115–139. Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric
2000Quirky agreement. Studia Linguistica 54(3): 354–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bondaruk, Anna
2012Person–Case Constraint effects in Polish copular constructions. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 59(1-2): 49–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013aInterplay of feature inheritance and information structure in Polish inverse copular sentences. In Formal Description of Slavic Languages: The Ninth Conference . Proceedings of FDSL 9, Göttingen 2011 [Linguistik International 28], Uwe Junghanns, Dorothee Fehrmann, Denisa Lenertová & Hagen Pitsch (eds), 37–65,Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2013bCopular Clauses in English and Polish. Structure, Derivation and Interpretation. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.Google Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia
1991Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
1994The Person-Case Constraint: A morphological approach. In The Morphology-Syntax connection[MITWPL 22], Heidi Harley & Colin Phillips (eds), 33–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro
1984Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds. PhD dissertation, Amherst, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1995The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step. Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka (eds), 89–155. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2001Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale. A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2008On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds), 134–166. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2013Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Citko, Barbara
2008Small clauses reconsidered: Not so small and not all alike. Lingua 118: 261–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011Symmetry in Syntax. Merge, Move and labels. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel
2006Relators as Linkers. The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion and Copulas [Linguistic Inquiry Monographs]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fiengo, Robert and May, Robert
1994Indices and Identity. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Geist, Ljudmila
2008Predication and equation in copular sentences in Russian vs. English. InExistence, Syntax and Semantics, Ileana Comorovski & Klaus von Heusinger (eds), 79–105. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane
1991Extended projection. Ms, Brandeis University.Google Scholar
2000Locality and extended projection. In Lexical Specification and Insertion [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 197], Peter Coopmans, Martin Everaert & Jane Grimshaw (eds) 115–133. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hentschel, Gerd
2001On the perspectivisation of noun phrases in copula sentences, mainly in Polish: (Y) to (jest) X and similar phenomena. In Studies on the Syntax and Semantics of Slavonic Languages, Viktor S. Chrakovskij, Maciej Grochowski & Gerd Hentschel (eds), 161–213.Oldenburg: Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Universität Oldenburg.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline & Kroch, Anthony
1999Pseudocleft connectedness: Implications for the LF interface level. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 365–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Higgins, Roger
1979The Pseudo-cleft Construction in English. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, Ken
2002Multiple Agree. Paper presented at the 25th GLOW Workshop: Tools in Linguistic Theory, Utrecht Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Jiménez-Fernández, Ángel & Spyropoulos, Vassilios
2013Feature inheritance, VP phases and the information structure of small clauses. Studia Linguistica 67(2): 185–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard
1994The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2010Why are there no directionality parameters? Ms, New York University.Google Scholar
Lavine, James & Freidin, Robert
2002The subject of defective T(ense) in Slavic. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 10: 253–289.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line
2005Copular Clauses. Specification, Predication and Equation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 85]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moro, Andrea
1990 There-raising: Principles across levels. Paper presented at the 13th Generative Linguistics in the Old World (GLOW) Colloquium, Cambridge.
1997The Raising of Predicates. Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000Dynamic Antisymmetry. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2006Some notes on unstable structures. Ms, Universitá Vita Salute San Raffaele.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon
1998Incomplete Category Fronting: A Derivational Approach to Remnant Movement in German. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004Verb-second as vP-first. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 7(3): 179–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ott, Denis
2011Local Instability: The Syntax of Split Topics. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
2012Local Instability: Split Topicalization and Quantifier Float in German. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara
1987Noun phrase interpretation and type shifting principles. In Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, Jeroen Groenendijk, Dick de Jongh & Martin Stokhof (eds), 115–143. Dordrecht: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
1998Copula inversion puzzles in English and Russian. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Seattle Meeting 1998, Katarzyna Dziwirek, Herbert Coats & Cynthia Vakareliyska (eds), 361–395. Ann Arbor MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya
2001On the Nature of Intra-clausal Relations. PhD dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
2007Copular Sentences in Russian. A Theory of Intra-clausal Relations. New York NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Reeve, Matthew
2010Clefts. PhD dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
Rezac, Milan
2008The syntax of eccentric agreement: The Person Case Constraint and absolutive displacement in Basque. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 61–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, Norvin
1997What Moves Where When in Which Language. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
2005Person-Case effect in Tagalog and the nature of long-distance extraction. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association [UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 12], Jeffrey Heinz & Dimitrios Ntelitheos (eds), 383–394. Los Angeles CA: UCLA Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Richards, Marc
2008Defective Agree, Case alternations and the prominence of person. In Scales [Linguitische Arbeits Berichte 86], Marc Richards & Andrej L. Malchukov (eds), 137–161. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar
Rivero, Maria Luisa
2004Spanish quirky subjects, person restrictions and the Person-Case Constraint. Linguistic Inquiry 35(3): 494–502. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
1997The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schütze, Carson. T
2001On the nature of default case. Syntax 4: 205–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur
2000Subject positions and copular constructions. In Interface Strategies, Hans Bennis, Martin Everaert & Eric Reuland (eds), 325–347. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.Google Scholar
Slioussar, Natalia
2007Grammar and Information Structure. A Study with Reference to Russian. Utrecht: LOT Publications.Google Scholar
Williams. Edwin
1983Semantic vs. syntactic categories. Linguistics and Philosophy 6(3): 423–446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiśniewski, Marek
1990Formalnogramatyczny opis leksemów to. 2. Słowo to w funkcji spójnika, partykuły, czasownika niewłaściwego (The formal and grammatical description of lexemes to. 2. The word to in the function of conjunction, particle and improper verb). Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici Filologia polska XXXI(192): 91–119.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Djärv, Kajsa
2021. The syntax and semantics of Swedish copular sentences: a comparative perspective. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 24:1  pp. 49 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.