Part of
Semantics in Language Acquisition
Edited by Kristen Syrett and Sudha Arunachalam
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 24] 2018
► pp. 276298
Achimova, A., Syrett, K., Musolino, J., & Déprez, V.
(2017) Children’s developing knowledge of wh-/quantifier question-answer relations. Language Learning and Development, 13, 80–99.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Achimova, A., Crosby, C., Déprez, V., Syrett, K., & Musolino, J.
(2013) Which account of wh-quantifier interaction should everyone adopt? A new take on a classic developmental puzzle. In S. Baiz, N. Goldman, & R. Hawkes (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 1–12). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Agüero-Bautista, C.
(2001) Cyclicity and the scope of wh-phrases (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT.Google Scholar
Beghelli, F.
(1997) The syntax of distributivity and pair-list readings. In A. Szabolcsi (Ed.) Ways of scope taking (pp. 349–408). Dordrecht: Kluwer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beghelli, F., & Stowell, T.
(1997) Distributivity and negation. In A. Szabolcsi (Ed.) Ways of scope taking (pp. 71–107). Dordrecht: Kluwer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berwick, R. C.
(1985) The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bhatt, R., & Takahashi, S.
(2011) Reduced and unreduced phrasal comparatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29, 581–620.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cecchetto, C.
(2004) Explaining the locality conditions of QR: Consequences for the theory of phases. Natural Language Semantics, 12, 345–397.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G.
(1993) Questions with quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 181–234.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1981) Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Crain, S., & Thornton, R.
(1998) Investigations in Universal Grammar: A guide to research on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Elbourne, P. D.
(2001) E-Type anaphora as NP-deletion. Natural Language Semantics, 9, 241–288.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elbourne, P. D.
(2005) Situations and individuals. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Evans, G.
(1977) Pronouns, quantifiers, and relative clauses (I). Canadian journal of Philosophy, 7(3), 467–536.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1980) Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 337–362.Google Scholar
Farkas, D.
(1981) Quantifier scope and syntactic islands. In R. A. Hendrick, C. S. Masek, & M. F. Miller (Eds.), Papers from the Seventeenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 59–66). Chicago, IL: CLS.Google Scholar
Fiengo, R., & May, R.
(1994) Indices and identity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fox, D.
(1995a) Economy and scope. Natural Language Semantics, 3, 283–341.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1995b) Condition C effects in ACD. In R. Pensalfini & H. Ura (Eds.), Papers on minimalist syntax (pp. 105–120). Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
(2000) Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gold, E. M.
(1967) Language identification in the limit. Information and Control, 10, 447–474.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gor, V., & Syrett, K.
(2015) Picking up after sloppy children: What pronouns reveal about children’s analysis of English comparative constructions. In E. Grillo & K. Jepson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 191–203). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Hackl, M.
(2000) Comparative quantifiers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT.Google Scholar
Hankamer, J., & Sag, I.
1976Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry, 7, 391–428.Google Scholar
Heim, I.
(1985) Notes on comparatives and related matters (Unpublished manuscript). University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
(1990) E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 137–177.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heim, I., & Kratzer, A.
(1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N.
(1994) An argument for minimalism: The case of antecedent-contained deletion. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 455–480.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C.
(1997) Antecedent-contained deletion and the syntax of quantification. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 662–688.Google Scholar
Larson, R., & May, R.
(1990) Antecedent containment or vacuous movement: Reply to Baltin. Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 103–122.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H.
(1976) Remarks on coreference. Linguistic Analysis, 2, 1–21.Google Scholar
Lechner, W.
(2004) Ellipsis in comparatives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. R., & Wexler, K.
(1987) Parameters, binding theory, and learnability. Linguistic Inquiry, 18, 413–444.Google Scholar
May, R.
(1977) The grammar of quantification (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT.Google Scholar
(1985) Logical form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1988) Ambiguities of quantification and wh: A reply to Williams. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 118–135.Google Scholar
Merchant, J.
(2000) Antecedent-contained deletion in negative polarity items. Syntax, 3, 144–150.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S.
(1989) Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M.
(1971) Remarks on weak crossover effects. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 539–556.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T.
(1976) The syntactic domain of anaphora (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT.Google Scholar
(1983) Coreference and bound anaphora: A restatement of the anaphora questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 6, 47–88.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roeper, T., & de Villiers, J. G.
(1993) The emergence of bound variable structures. In E. Reuland & W. Abraham (Eds.), Knowledge and language, Vol. 1: From Orwell’s Problem to Plato’s Problem (pp. 105–139). Dordrecht: Kluwer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. R.
(1967) Constraints on variables in syntax (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT.Google Scholar
Sag, I.
1976Deletion and Logical Form (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A.
(1997) Quantifiers in pair-list readings. In A. Szabolcsi (Ed.), Ways of scope taking (pp. 349–408). Dordrecht: Kluwer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Syrett, K.
(2015a) Experimental support for inverse scope readings of finite-clause embedded Antecedent-Contained Deletion sentences. Linguistic Inquiry, 46, 579–592.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015b) QR out of a tensed clause: Evidence from Antecedent-Contained Deletion. In N. Nansen & E. Borg (Eds.), Investigating Meaning. Special issue of Ratio, 28, 395–421.Google Scholar
Syrett, K., & Lidz, J.
(2011) Competence, performance and the locality of Quantifier Raising: Evidence from 4-year-old children. Linguistic Inquiry, 42, 305–337.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tunstall, S. L.
(1998) The Interpretation of quantifiers: Semantics and processing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Vendler, Z.
(1962) Each and every, any and all. Mind: A Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy, LXXI, 145–160.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wasow, T.
(1972) Anaphoric relations in English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) MIT. Revised version published in 1979 as Anaphora in Generative Grammar. Ghent: Story-Scientia.Google Scholar
Yamakoshi, K.
(2002) The acquisition of wh/every interaction in English. In B. Skarabela, S. Fish & A. H-J. Do (Eds.), BUCLD 26: Proceedings of the 26th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 769–780). Somerville, MA. Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar