Part of
Morphological Complexity within and across Boundaries: In honour of Aslı Göksel
Edited by Aslı Gürer, Dilek Uygun-Gökmen and Balkız Öztürk
[Studies in Language Companion Series 215] 2020
► pp. 155190
Benmamoun, Elabbas, Bhatia, Archna & Polinsky, Maria
2009Closest conjunct agreement in head-final languages. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 9: 67–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, Judy B.
2008English th- forms. In Essays on Nominal Determination: From Morphology to Discourse Management [Studies in Language Companion Series 99], Henrik Høeg Müller & Alex Klinge (eds), 213–232. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brito, José António, Matos, Gabriela & Pratas, Fernanda
2015Comitative coordination in Capeverdean. In Selected Proceedings of the 44th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, Ruth Kramer, Elizabeth C. Zsiga & One Tlale Boyer (eds), 17–27. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Cable, Seth
2017Some observations on the plural pronoun construction of Tlingit, Polish, and Russian. In A Pesky Set: Papers for David Pesetsky, Claire Halpert, Hadas Kotek, & Coppe van Urk (eds), Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. [URL] (28 September 2019).Google Scholar
Caha, Pavel
2009The Nanosyntax of Case. PhD dissertation, University of Tromsø.
Camacho, José Antonio
1997The Syntax of NP Coordination. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
2000Structural restrictions on comitative coordination. Linguistic Inquiry 31(2): 366–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
2000Minimalist inquiries. 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
Collins, Chris
1988aPart 1. Conjunction adverbs. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
1988bPart 2. Alternative analyses of conjunction. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1981Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William
1988Agreement vs case marking and direct objects. In Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions, Michael Barlow, & Charles A. Ferguson (eds), 159–179. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Daniel, Michael & Moravcsik, Edith
2013The associative plural. In The World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS) Online, Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL] (4 February 2016).Google Scholar
Danon, Gabi
2011Agreement and DP-internal feature distribution. Syntax 14: 297–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Déchaine, Rose-Marie & Wiltschko, Martina
2002Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33(3): 409–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dékány, Éva
2009Comitative adjuncts: Appositives and non-appositives. In Adverbs and Adverbial Adjuncts at the Interfaces, Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), 231–246. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dyla, Stefan & Feldman, Anna
2003On comitative constructions in Polish and Russian. In Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on Formal Description of Slavic Languages, Gerhild Zybatow (ed.). Leipzig: Peter Lang. [URL] (21 February 2016).Google Scholar
Erelt, Mati
2008Concerning the relationship of the comitative construction to the coordinating construction in Estonia. Linguistica Uralica 44(2): 97–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Anna
2002Comitative and plural pronoun constructions. In Proceedings of Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics 17, Yehuda N. Falk (ed). Jerusalem, Israel: Hebrew University of Jerusalem. [URL] (12 December 2015).Google Scholar
Göksel, Aslı & Kerslake, Celia
2005Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2007Coordination. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. II: Complex Constructions, 2nd edn, Timothy Shopen (ed.). Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene & Kratzer, Angelika
1998Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Inokuma, Sakumi
2013Distribution of phi-feature within DPs and the Activity Condition. English Linguistics 3(1): 292–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Kyle
1996In search of the English middle field. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard
1994The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin
1997Turkish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2018Turkish comitatives: The genuine and the apparent. In Tu+ 1: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Turkish, Turkic and the Languages of Turkey Faruk Akkuş, İsa Kerem Bayırlı & Deniz Özyıldız (eds), 99–126. Amherst MA: GLSA. [URL] (28 September 2019).Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William
1988Group reference and the plural pronoun construction. In Papers on the Plural Pronoun Construction and Comitative Coordination, 1–7. Santa Cruz CA: Syntax Research Center Report SRC, UCSC.Google Scholar
Lewis, Geoffrey L.
1967Turkish Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe
2008Reference to individuals, person, and the variety of mapping parameters. In Essays on Nominal Determination: From Morphology to Discourse Management [Studies in Language Companion Series 99], Henrik Høeg Müller & Alex Klinge (eds), 189–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNally, Louise
1993Comitative coordination: A case study in group formation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11(2): 347–379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munn, Alan
1993Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Coordinate Structures. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.
Nevskaya, Irina
2005Inclusive and exclusive in Turkic languages. In Clusivity: Typology and Case Studies of the Inclusive-Exclusive Distinction [Typological Studies in Language 63], Elena Filimonova (ed.), 341–358. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana
1998Structure for coordination (Part I & Part II). GLOT International 3(7): 3–9.Google Scholar
Richards, Marc D.
2007On feature inheritance: An argument from the Phase Impenetrability Condition. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 563–572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth
1991Two functional categories in noun phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. Syntax and Semantics 25: 37–62.Google Scholar
1992Cross-linguistic evidence for number phrase. Canadian Journal of Lingustics 37: 197–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993Where’s gender? Linguistic Inquiry 24: 795–803.Google Scholar
Ross, John R.
1967Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Sauerland, Uli
2003A new semantics for number. In Proceedings of SALT, Robert B. Young & Yuping Zhou (eds), 258–275. Ithaca NY: CLC.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Linda
1988Asymmetric feature distribution in pronominal coordinations. In Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, and Descriptions, Michael Barlow, & Charles A. Ferguson (eds), 237–249. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Škrabalová, Hana
2003Comitative constructions in Czech. In Investigations into Formal Slavic Linguistics, Peter Kosta, Joanna Blaszczak, Jens Frasek, & Ljudmila Geist (eds), 685–696. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Vassilieva, Maria Borisovna
2005Associative and Pronominal Plurality. PhD dissertation, Stony Brook University.
Vassilieva, Masha & Larson, Richard K.
2005The semantics of the plural pronoun construction. Natural Language Semantics 13(2): 101–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Niina Ning
2007The syntax of English comitative constructions. Folia Linguistica 41(1-2): 135–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010Coordination in Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Zoerner, Ed
1995Coordination: The Syntax of &P. PhD dissertation, University of California, Irvine.