Article In:
The Evolution of Expletives: Theoretical and diachronic perspectives
Edited by Eric Fuß and Benjamin L. Sluckin
[Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 6:1/2] 2024
► pp. 191242
References (145)
References
Acedo-Matellan, V. (2016). The morphosyntax of transitions: A case study in Latin and other languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Acedo-Matellan, V. & Mateu, J. (2014). From syntax to roots: A syntactic approach to root interpretation. In A. Alexiadou, H. Borer & F. Schäfer (Eds.), The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax (pp. 14–32). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A. & Anagnostopoulou, E. (1998). Parametrizing AGR : Word order, V-movement and EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16 (3), 491–539. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). The subject-in-situ generalization and the role of Case in driving computations. Linguistic Inquiry, 32 (2), 193–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E. & Schäfer, F. (2015). External arguments in transitivity alterations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Gehrke, B. & Schäfer, F. (2014). The argument structure of adjectival participles revisited. Lingua, 149 1, 118–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A. & Schäfer, F. (2011). There-insertion: An unaccusativity mismatch at the syntax-semantics interface. In M. B. Washburn et al. (Eds.), Online proceedings of WCCFL 28 1. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. (1988). The case of unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 19 (1), 1–34.Google Scholar
(2004). Aspects of the low IP area. In L. Rizzi (Ed.), The structure of CP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures (Vol. 21, pp. 16–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L. (1988). Psych verbs and theta-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6 1, 291–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benincà, P. (1988). L’ordine degli elementi della frase e le costruzioni marcate. In L. Renzi, G. Salvi & A. Cardinaletti (Eds.), Grande Grammatica Italiana di Consultazione (pp. 115–225). Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Bentley, D. & Cruschina, S. (2018). The silent argument of broad focus: Typology and predictions. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 3 (1).Google Scholar
Bentley, D., Maria Ciconte, F. & Cruschina, S. (2015). Existentials and locatives in Romance dialects of Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, R. & Pancheva, R. (2006). Implicit arguments. In The Blackwel l companion to syntax (Vol. 21). Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Implicit arguments. In M. Everaert & H. C. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Blackwel l companion to syntax (2nd ed.). Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, V. (1993). Subject positions and e-positions. Quaderni del Laboratorio di Linguistica, 7 1, 51–69.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. (2010). Semi pro-drop languages, expletives, and expletive pro reconsidered. In T. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts & M. Sheehan (Eds.), Parametric variation (p. 153–199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., Roberts, I. & Sheehan, M. (2010). Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biberauer, T. & Roberts, I. (2010). Subjects, tense and verb-movement. In T. Biberauer, A. Holmberg, I. Roberts & M. Sheehan (Eds.), Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory (p. 263–303). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Birner, B. J. (1994). Information status and word order: An analysis of English inversion. Language, 70 (2), 233–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996). The discourse function of inversion in English. New York/London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D. (2008). Paradigms (optimal and otherwise): A case for scepticism. In A. Bachrach & A. Nevins (Eds.), Inflectional identity (pp. 29–54). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borschev, V. & Partee, B. H. (1998). Formal and lexical semantics and the genitive in negated existential sentences in Russian. In Bošković, S. Franks & W. Snyder (Eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The Connecticut meeting 1997 (Vol. 61, p. 75–96). MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Bošković, Ž. (2011). On valued uninterpretable features. In S. Lima, K. Mullin & B. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th annual meeting of the north east linguistic society (p. 109–120). University of Massachusetts Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
Bosse, S., Bruening, B. & Yamada, M. (2012). Affected experiencers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 30 (4), 1185–1230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowers, J. (1993). The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry, 24 1, 591–656.Google Scholar
(2010). Arguments as relations. Cambridge, MA.: MIT University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breivik, L. E. (1989). On the causes of syntactic change in English. In L. E. Breivik & E. H. Jahr (Eds.), Language change. contributions to the study of its causes (p. 29–70). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1977). Variables in the theory of transformations. In P. Culicover, T. Wasow & A. Akmajian (Eds.), Formal syntax (p. 157–196). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1994). Locative Inversion and the architecture of universal grammar. Language, 70 (1), 72–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J. & Stein, D. (1995). Functional renewal. In Historical linguistics, 1993: Selected papers from the 11th international conference on historical linguistics, Los Angeles, 16–20 august 1993 (Vol. 1241, pp. 33–47). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruening, B. (2010). Language-particular syntactic rules and constraints: English Locative Inversion and do-support. Language, 86 (1), 43–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). Locative Inversion, PP Topicalization, and Weak Crossover in English. Journal of Linguistics, 1–19. DOI logo
Cardinaletti, A. (2004). Towards a cartogrpahy of subject positions. In L. Rizzi (Ed.), The structure of CP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures (Vol. 21, pp. 115–165). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. & Starke, M. (1999). The typology of structural deficiency: A case study of three classes of pronouns. In Clitics in the languages of Europe. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlson, G. (1977). A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1 1, 413–457. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
(1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2000). Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–155). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). On Phases. In R. Freidin, C. P. Otero & M. L. Zubizarreta (Eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory. essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud (pp. 133–166). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. (1995). Italian syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, C. (1997). Local economy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Coopmans, P. (1989). Where stylistic and syntactic processes meet: Locative Inversion in English. Language, 65 (4), 728–751. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corr, A. (2016). Wide-focus subject-verb inversion in Ibero-Romance: A locative account. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 1 (1), 207–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P. W. (2013). Topicalization, inversion, and complementizers in English (1992). In Explaining syntax: Representations, structures, and computation (p. 212–255). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P. W. & Levine, R. D. (2001). Stylistic Inversion in English: A reconsideration. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 19 (2), 283–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deal, A. R. (2009). The origin and content of expletives: Evidence from “selection”. Syntax, 12 1, 285–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diesing, M. (1992). Indefinites (No. 20). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dobler, E. (2008a). ‘again’ and the structure of result states. Proceedings of ConSOLE XV, 1 1, 42–66.Google Scholar
(2008b). Creating as putting something into the world. Proceedings of ConSOLE XVI, 39 1, 39–50.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N. (1997). The dynamics of focus structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2007). Information structure: The syntax-discourse interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Stage topics and their architecture. In V. Molnár, V. Egerland & S. Winkler (Eds.), Architecture of topic (pp. 223–248). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O., Kemenade, A. v., Koopman, W. & Wurff, W. v. d. (2001). The syntax of early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, S. (2016). Existentials vs. unaccusatives: The definiteness restriction in Romance. In S. Fischer, T. Kupisch & E. Rinke (Eds.), Definiteness effects: Bilingual, typological and diachronic variation (pp. 301–332). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Folli, R. & Harley, H. (2019). A head movement approach to Talmy’s typology. Linguistic Inquiry, 1–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freeze, R. (1992). Existentials and other locatives. Language, 68 (3), 553–595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frey, W. (2004). A medical topic position for German. Linguistische Berichte, 199 1, 153–190.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, G. (2002a). Left Dislocation as movement. Georgetown University Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics, 2 (31–81).Google Scholar
(2002b). Minimalistische syntax. Tübingen, Basel: Francke Verlag.Google Scholar
(2009). The left clausal periphery: Clitic Left Dislocation in Italian and Left Dislocation in German. In B. Shaer, P. Cook, W. Frey & C. Maienborn (Eds.), Dislocated elements in discourse:syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic perspectives (pp. 57–102). New York, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K. (1985). ‘shared knowledge’ and topicality. Journal of Pragmatics, 9 (1), 83–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gutzmann, D. & Castroviejo Miró, E. (2011). The dimensions of verum. In O. Bonami & P. C. Hofherr (Eds.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 8 1 (p. 143–165). Paris: Colloque de Syntaxe et Sémantique à Paris.Google Scholar
Haeberli, E. (2002a). Features, categories and the syntax of a-positions: Cross-linguistic variation in the Germanic languages. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002b). Inflectional morphology and the loss of V2 in English. In D. Lightfoot (Ed.), Syntactic effects of morphological change (pp. 88–106). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haider, H. (2010). The syntax of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (1998). The basic elements of argument structure. MIT Working papers in linguistics, 32 1, 73–118.Google Scholar
(2000). There-insertion unaccusatives. (Ms. MIT)Google Scholar
Hartmann, J. M. (2008). Expletives in existentials. English ‘there’ and German ‘da’. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Hinterhölzl, R. (2019). Subjects, Topics, and Anchoring to the Context. Syntax, 22 (2–3), 199–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, T. (1988). Small clause results. Lingua, 74 (2–3), 101–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, T. & Mulder, R. (1990). Unergatives as copular verbs: Locational and existential predication. The Linguistic Review, 7 1, 1–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hole, D. & Fraser, K. (2019, November). At-issue and not-at-issue in the swarm alternation. (presentation at Event Semantics 2019, Berlin)
Holmberg, A. (2000). Scandinavian Stylistic Fronting: How any category can become an expletive. Linguistic Inquiry, 31 1, 445–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hooper, J. & Thompson, S. (1973). On the Applicability of Root Transformations. Linguistic Inquiry, 4 1, 465–497.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Husband, M. E. (2012). On the compositional nature of states. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Höhle, T. N. (1992). Über verum-fokus im deutschen [about verumfocus in german]. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft, 4 1, 112–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Irwin, P. (2012). Unaccusativity at the interfaces (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). New York University, New York, NY. (lingbuzz/001617)
(2018). Existential unaccusativity and new discourse referents. Glossa, 3 (1).Google Scholar
Jayaseelan, K. A. (2001). IP-internal topic and focus phrases. Studia Linguistica, 55 (1), 39–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1973). Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry, 4 (2), 169–193.Google Scholar
Kiss, K. É. (1998). Identificational focus versus information focus. Language, 74 (2), 245–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, W. (1992). The present perfect puzzle. Language, 525–552. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ko, H. (2005). Syntax of why-in-situ: Merge into [spec, cp] in the overt syntax. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 23 (4), 867–916. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1995). Stage level and individual level predicates. In G. N. Carlson & F. J. Pelletier (Eds.), The generic book (p. 125–175). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1996). Severing the external argument from its verb. In J. Rooryck & L. A. Zaring (Eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon (Vol. 331, pp. 109–138). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroch, A. S. (1989). Function and grammar in the history of english: periphrastic do. In R. W. Fasold & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), Language change and variation (Vol. 521, p. 133–172). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lahousse, K. (2003). Np-subject inversion in French and (preposed) adverbs. In A. T. Pérez-Leroux & Y. Roberge (Eds.), Romance linguistics: Theory and acquisition (p. 181–96). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). NP subject inversion in French: two types, two configurations. Lingua, 116 1, 424–461. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Implicit stage topics. Discour. Revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique, 1 1, 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Quand passent les cigognes. le sujet nominal postverbal en Français moderne. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landau, I. (2010). The locative syntax of experiencers (No. 53). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface (No. 261). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2013). Lexicalized meaning and manner/result complementarity. In B. Arsenijević, B. Gehrke & R. Marín (Eds.), Subatomic semantics of event predicates (pp. 49–70). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marantz, A. (1991). Case and licensing. In German Westphal, B. Ao & H.-R. Chae (Eds.), Proceesings of ESCOL (pp. 234–253). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Cornell Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Mateu, J. & Acedo-Matellán, V. (2012). The manner/result complementarity revisited: A syntactic approach. In M. C. Cuervo & Y. Roberge (Eds.), The end of argument structure (pp. 209–228). Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McFadden, T. (2004). The position of morphological case in the derivation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Milsark, G. (1974). Existential sentences in english (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Miyagawa, S. (2017). Agreement beyond phi. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moro, A. (1997). The raising of predicates: Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ouali, H. (2008). On C-to-T-feature transfer: The nature of agreement and anti-agreement in Berber. In R. D’Alessandro, S. Fischer & G. H. Hrafnbjargarson (Eds.), Agreement restrictions (pp. 159–180). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Agreement, pronominal clitics and negation in Tamazight Berber. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. (1973). Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. The Journal of Philosophy, 70 (18), 601–609. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partee, B. H. & Borschev, V. (2008). Existential sentences, be, and the genitive of negation in Russian. In I. Comorovski & K. von Heusinger (Eds.), Existence: Semantics and syntax (pp. 147–190). Dodrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M. (1978). Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. In 4th annual meeting of the berkeley linguistics society (pp. 157–190). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinto, M. (1997). Licensing and interpretation of inverted subjects in Italian (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Utrecht University, Utrecht, NL.
Postal, P. M. (2004). Skeptical linguistic essays. Oxford: Oxord University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Preminger, O. (2011). Agreement as a fallible operation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
(2014). Agreement and its failures (No. 68). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pylkkänen, L. (2008). Introducing arguments (No. 49). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. (2009). An introduction to English syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Richards, M. & Biberauer, T. (2005). Explaining expl. In M. den Dikken & T. Christina (Eds.), The function of function words and functional categories (p. 115–153). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1986). Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro . Linguistic Inquiry, 17 1, 501–557.Google Scholar
(1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, A.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2001). ‘on the position “int (errogative)” in the left periphery of the clause’. In G. Cinque & G. Salvi (Eds.), Current studies in Italian syntax: Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi (Vol. 591, p. 287–296). Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). On some properties of subjects and topics. In L. Brugè, G. Giusti, N. Munaro, W. Schweikert & G. Turano (Eds.), Contributions to the xxx incontro di grammatica generativa (p. 203–224). Venice: Cafoscarina.Google Scholar
(2018). Subjects, topics and the interpretation of pro . In R. Petrosino, P. Cerrone & H. van der Hulst (Eds.), Beyond the veil of Maya. from sounds to structures (p. 510–529). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. & Shlonsky, U. (2006). Satisfying the subject criterion by a non subject: English Locative Inversion and heavy NP shift. In M. Frascarelli (Ed.), Phases of interpretation (p. 341–361). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I. (2010). Agreement and head movement: Clitics, incorporation, and defective goals. MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roeper, T. (1987). Implicit arguments and the head-complement relation. Linguistic Inquiry, 18 1, 267–310.Google Scholar
Salzmann, M. (2011). Towards a typology of Locative Inversion-Bantu, perhaps Chinese and English-but beyond? Language and Linguistics Compass, 5 (4), 169–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, F. (2008). The syntax of (anti-)causatives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, M. (2007). The EPP and null subjects in Romance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Newcastle University, Newcastle.
Shlonsky, U. (1997). Clause structure and word order in Hebrew and Arabic: An essay in comparative Semitic syntax. Oxford, UK.: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sluckin, B. L. (2021). Non-canonical subjects and subject positions: locative inversion, v2-violations, and feature inheritance (Doctoral dissertation, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Sprach- und literaturwissenschaftliche Fakultät, Berlin). DOI logo
Sluckin, B. L., Cruschina, S. & Martin, F. (2021). Locative Inversion in Germanic and Romance: a conspiracy theory. In C. Meklenborg & S. Wolfe (Eds.), Germanic and Romance: Continuity and Variation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sternefeld, W. (2006). Syntax: Eine morphologisch motivierte generative Beschreibung Des deutschen. Mannheim: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Stowell, T. (1981). Origins of phrase structure (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Svenonius, P. (2003). Limits on P: filling in holes vs. falling in holes. Nordlyd, 31 (2), 431–445.Google Scholar
(2007). Adpositions, particles and the arguments they introduce. In E. Reuland, T. Bhattacharya & G. Spathas (Eds.), Argument structure (pp. 63–103). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teixeira, J. (2016). Locative Inversion and stage topics: a cross-linguistic study. Discours. Revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique. A Journal of Linguistics, psycholinguistics and computational linguistics, 19 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tortora, C. M. (1997). The syntax and semantics of the weak locative (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Deleware, Newark, DE.
(2001). Evidence for a null locative in Italian. In C. Guglielmo & S. Giampaolo (Eds.), Current studies in Italian syntax: essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi (p. 313–326). London: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Wal, J. (2021). The BaSiS basics of information structure. Retrieved from [URL] (Accessed: 01.09.2024)
von Stechow, A. (1996). The different readings of wieder ‘again’: a structural account. Journal of Semantics, 13 (2), 87–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wood, J. (2015). Icelandic morphosyntax and argument structure and linguistic theory (Vol. 901). Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wood, J. & Marantz, A. (2017). The interpretation of external arguments. In R. D’Alessandro, I. Franco & À. J. Gallego (Eds.), The verbal domain (p. 255–278). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zhao, R. (2019). Deriving the variation and constraints of the present perfect. In A. van Alem, M. De Sisto, E. J. Kerr & J. Wall (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th conference of the student organization of linguistics in Europe (21–23 february 2019, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) (Vol. XXVII1, pp. 215–327). Leiden: Leiden University Centre for Linguistics.Google Scholar
Zwart, J.-W. (1992). Dutch expletives and small clause predicate raising. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, 22 1, 477–491.Google Scholar