Chapter published in:
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2018: Selected papers from 'Going Romance' 32, Utrecht
Edited by Sergio Baauw, Frank Drijkoningen and Luisa Meroni
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 357] 2021
► pp. 97116
Arregi, Karlos
2010Ellipsis in split questions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28(3). 539–592. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brandner, Ellen
2000Scope Marking and Clausal Typing. In Uli Lutz, Gereon Müller & Arnim von Stechow (eds.), Wh-scope marking, 45–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Camacho, José
2002Wh-doubling: Implications for the syntax of wh-movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33. 157–164. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Contreras, Joan M. & Francesc Roca
2007D’oracions interrogatives: les interrogatives escindides. Caplletra 42. 145–184.Google Scholar
Van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen
2010The Syntax of ellipsis. Evidence from Dutch dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta
1994Scope Marking as indirect wh dependency. Natural Language Semantics 2. 137–170. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000Scope Marking: Cross-linguistic variation in indirect dependency. In Uli Lutz, Gereon Müller & Arnim von Stechow (eds.), Wh-scope marking, 157–194. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel
2006Relators and linkers. The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel, André Meinunger & Chris Wilder
2000Pseudo-clefts and ellipsis. Studia Linguistica 54(1). 41–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Soriano, Olga
2009On the nature of covert operations. The case of focus in Spanish pseudoclefts. In Enoch Oladé Aboh, Elisabeth van der Linden, Josep Quer & Petra Sleeman (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory, 87–109. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane
2005Words and structure. Stanford, CA: CLSI Publications.Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia
2000On the syntax of “wh-scope-marker” constructions: Some comparative evidence. In Uli Lutz, Gereon Müller & Arnim von Stechow (eds.), Wh-scope marking, 271–316. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Irurtzun, Aritz
2017On the nature and distribution of split wh-questions in Basque. Paper presented at the 27th Colloquium on Generative Grammar, Madrid, Spain, May 17–19.
Kiss, Katalin É.
1998Identificational focus versus informational focus. Language 74. 245–273. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kluck, M. Elisabeth
2011Sentence amalgamation. Groningen: LOT, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lorenzo, Guillermo
1994–95 Qué expletivo en preguntas dislocadas. Archivum Ovetensis XLIV-XLV. 423–446.Google Scholar
López Cortina, Jorge
2009Split questions, extended projections, and dialect variation. In Joseph Collentine, Maryellen García, Barbara Lafford, & Francisco Marcos Marín (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 11th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 219–230. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Lutz, Uli, Gereon Müller & Arnim von Stechow
2000Wh-scope marking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason
2004Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27. 661–738. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Munaro, Nicola & Jean-Yves Pollock
2005‘Qu’est-ce-que.qu)-est-ce-que?’ A case study in comparative Romance interrogative syntax. In Guglielmo Cinque & Richard S. Kayne (eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax, 542–606. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ott, Denis
2014An ellipsis approach to contrastive left-dislocation. Linguistic Inquiry 45(2). 269–303. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ott, Denis & Mark de Vries
2014Right-dislocation as deletion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34(2). 641–690. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert
2012On the prosody and syntax of right-dislocation. Paper presented at Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft (DGfS), Frankfurt, Germany, March 7–9.
Uriagereka, Juan
1995Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26. 79–123.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. Luisa
1998Prosody, focus and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar